After letting the boys handle three handguns — a .357 Magnum revolver, a .22 revolver and a 9 mm — he then pulled out a Glock 27 .40-caliber handgun that was equipped with a laser sight.

Olm stated that he did not check to see if there was a round in the chamber, but said that the handgun did not have a magazine in it. Olm said that he pointed the laser at the walls and ceiling. And then he pointed it at his nephew.

“Look, you have a red dot on your forehead,” Olm recalled one of the boys saying.

Olm said that when the nephew reached out for the gun, he pulled the trigger. A single bullet struck the child above the eye, causing him to start bleeding and fall over.

Eleven years old, and he got his brains blown out because his uncle was a gun-fondling fuckhead.

To which the gun fondlers will respond, well, he wasn’t a “responsible” gun owner, none of us “responsible” gun owners would have done that….

To which I respond, there are almost certainly, almost by definition, more irresponsible gun owners than responsible ones, and thanks to the NRA and their lobbying, we’re saddled with a system in which anyone can obtain the deadliest pocket sized device ever made without demonstrating any more responsibility than that of surviving to adulthood.

Thanks to the NRA you don’t even need to survive to adulthood to obtain and use the deadliest pocket sized devices ever made. We’re talking about people who think there’s nothing cuter than a kid shooting a gun.

Olm said that when the nephew reached out for the gun, he pulled the trigger

Why the fuck did he pull the trigger? This story is so sad. And scary, because as a parent you can’t be with your kids all of the time. Sometimes they will be visiting grandparents. Or friends. I can’t even imagine what his family is going through, especially his cousin, who was right there.

fuck this
fuck the NRA
fuck the gun lobby
fuck the assholes who refuse to discuss guns when a death happens
fuck the assholes who refuse to discuss guns when no death happens
fuck the insane gibbering lunacy of the gun fondling lobby
fuck the enablers
fuck the manufacturers
and
more importantly
fuck the media for going along with it willingly.

I think the technical term for that is “felony stupid”. “I didn’t think it was loaded!” is the dumbest thing you could do, aside from playing with firearms around children. Firearms are always loaded. Oh, you unloaded it yourself? STILL ACT LIKE THE GODDAMN THING IS LOADED. It prevents mistakes.

I will never understand the people who think of firearms as toys. I really enjoy target shooting, even with so-called “assault weapons”, and I still think the gun lobby is a bunch of petulant fuckheads with vigilante fantasies and a complete lack of respect for the devices they lobby for.

The technical term is homicide by depraved indifference to human life: he knew or should have known that pulling the trigger might kill his nephew, since he admits to not checking whether there was a bullet in that gun, and pulled the trigger anyway.

To which the gun fondlers will respond, well, he wasn’t a “responsible” gun owner, none of us “responsible” gun owners would have done that….

All gun owners are responsible until they are not. It is not really a useful term, it only gets revoked when someone does something like this, and there is no way to determine who is irresponsible until this happens.

Not 100% true, Travis- one can behave irresponsibly without causing a tragedy. Driving drunk is irresponsible, even if you don’t cause an accident. The difference is that firearms are (generally) used in private places, so it’s harder to spot irresponsibility until it blooms into tragedy.

I’ve witnessed more irresponsible firearms usage that I care for- you still generally don’t go out into the woods during hunting season, because there are always those few yahoos that don’t confirm their targets or check their line of fire (I once came across someone firing a rifle towards a house- the house wasn’t in his line-of-sight, but there was no backstop, either- bullets can travel farther than you can see, asshole!).

There is no end for this F*^&**ard gun culture. When it comes to Sickest cultural practices, America has one, its American gun culture.
Majority of people are obsessed with this F*^&**ard gun culture, the majority only frigging says background check and other BS, but majority never despises this sickest gun culture. America should be ashamed. Guns doesn’t belong to civilized society.

Not 100% true, Travis- one can behave irresponsibly without causing a tragedy.

Oh, I agree, but this is how the term seems to be used whenever something like this comes up. The shooter gains the label irresponsible, and everyone else sits backs and says they are not like that, they are responsible.

you still generally don’t go out into the woods during hunting season, because there are always those few yahoos that don’t confirm their targets or check their line of fire (I once came across someone firing a rifle towards a house- the house wasn’t in his line-of-sight, but there was no backstop, either- bullets can travel farther than you can see, asshole!).

I am sure many of the people who do something like this have signs that label them as people that should not have firearms, but in the end, even if someone notices there appears to be little that can be done. Maybe they get banned from a gun club or range, but only if they outwardly show off their stupid behaviour.

My life experience is that we are all stupid from time to time. The larger stupidity here was allowing (creating) a circumstance in which stupid mistakes could be fatal. The universe occasionally imposes the death penalty for stupidity and the trick is to avoid circumstances where your inevitable small stupidities are likely to result in death or serious harm.

It wasn’t the small stupidities that was the culpable factor in this case, it was the immense stupidity of purposely creating a situation where small a small stupidity could be fatal. For that larger stupidity I think he should certainly face criminal charges.

Of course the braindead conscience-less media won’t cover this, don’t want to offend the NRA or get Faux news to say something nasty. Don’t want to offend those wise legistlators in Georgia and Florida. Don’t need no stories which contradict the official Ted Nugent narrative that guns are always and only about good guys killing bad guys, so the more guns the merrier. Just wait till the rethugs regain the White House, congress and the SC. It will be a sacred duty that every school teacher be armed, and guns be allowed everywhere. Don’t want to pay your taxes, just get you’re armed neighbors over to defend you and protect you from the evil guvment. You can permanently kiss America goodbye forever.

It wouldn’t make a difference, but I’d love to see a documenary that follows the lives of a handful of people who at some point had accidentally shot a close relative. I mean, the regret….The total pointlessness of it…

I thought of this because it was adult play time that precipitated his troubles:

Before the shooting at the national park, Barnes was wanted in connection with a shooting early Sunday in the Seattle suburb of Skyway that left four people wounded, two critically, according to the King County Sheriff’s Office.
“There was kind of a show-and-tell with guns in the evening at a party,” spokeswoman Sgt. Cindi West told CNN.
Shortly before 3 a.m. Sunday, one of the males at the party asked to see a gun belonging to another person, West said. When asked to give the gun back, the male refused.
“A fight ensued, and at one point at least two people pulled guns, and a shootout ensued. Witnesses said that Benjamin Barnes was one of the subjects that pulled a gun and fired,” West said in a statement. Barnes left the scene with two others.

From another coworker, I heard that the Rambo wannabe that killed the park ranger lady actually shot the guy that started the incident at the gun party, possibly saving the life of one of the other idiots at the party. But rather than stick around to defend himself, he flipped out and took to the hills.

Two other peeps from the party incident still worked with me after Barnes died, but were fired as more information came to light. One was a condescending fuckface from hell, but the other was a very nice dude. Bad taste in friends I guess.

This is how the conversation always seems to go:
“But I’m a responsible gun owner! I shouldn’t be penalised because someone else can’t be trusted with a weapon?”

“Oh, so you’d be in favour of strict gun control laws in order to keep guns out of the hands of people who do something like this?”

“Wargh! Second Amendment!”

Basically, the problem is that a few bad apples give responsible gun owners a bad name by killing a handful of tens of thousands of people a year, but we cannot do anything to stop that, and we also can’t hold the gun owners who are standing in the way of stopping it in anyway responsible.

Actually, if firearms were banned, Drofle, I’d probably build a railgun. It’s not about the artifact, or even the piece of paper. It is, in fact, about knowingly doing something dangerous in a controlled situation.

The problem, of course, is the negative externalities, and that’s really what the anti-firearms folks are concerned with. I recognize this problem, but I also recognize that I, personally, am not contributing to them in any particular way- I certainly don’t give any support to the NRA (not even my tacit support), nor to any gun clubs. Frankly, I haven’t operated a firearm in over a decade.

The reality is that guns aren’t the problem- gun culture is. There are idiots who purchase firearms specifically because they can destroy a human life, not in spite of it. Possibly most firearms owners fall into that category, and it disgusts me. I’m a pacifist, personally, and the idea that firearms are used specifically for harm is simply repugnant, and that’s a big part of the reason I don’t engage with gun culture or the culture of violence in general.

@ Thomathy # 16:
Why? None of my guns has ever caused anybody harm. I don’t point guns at people or leave them where others can get to them. Why should I be against them? Because some are to irresponsible to own guns? That’s a matter of regulation.

Not everybody are responsible enough to drive a car, every day innocent people gets killed because an asshole got in the car after a bottle of Scotch or because he thought he could do 150 through a residential area. Should I also be against cars?

It wouldn’t make a difference, but I’d love to see a documenary that follows the lives of a handful of people who at some point had accidentally shot a close relative. I mean, the regret….The total pointlessness of it…

I’m more scared that more of them don’t feel that way. They’ve convinced themselves, both for their own peace of mind and because the gun-loving society promotes it, that it was an unforeseeable accident that they bear no responsibility for. Just as accidental as lightning striking someone walking home from school. Nothing that was their fault at all.

tually, if firearms were banned, Drofle, I’d probably build a railgun. It’s not about the artifact, or even the piece of paper. It is, in fact, about knowingly doing something dangerous in a controlled situation.

The reality is that guns aren’t the problem- gun culture is. There are idiots who purchase firearms specifically because they can destroy a human life, not in spite of it. Possibly most firearms owners fall into that category, and it disgusts me. I’m a pacifist,

I fail to see what the difference is between your motivation and the idiots’s motivation.

It’s guys like this that make me want to rethink my position on the death penalty. If I found my sibling standing over my kid with a gun, saying, “Ooops!”, I’d probably carry out that penalty right there and then.

With all due respect: The point of rule of law and a court legitimized by public contract and authority is that what we want to do in the heat of emotion is not always right or smart. People who are against the death penalty probably might want to hurt someone who wronged them, but that doesn’t make those feelings right. Nor does acknowledging those feelings and impulses exist and trying to contain and control them mean that someone is a hypocrite.

Not everybody are responsible enough to drive a car, every day innocent people gets killed because an asshole got in the car after a bottle of Scotch or because he thought he could do 150 through a residential area. Should I also be against cars?

There are a hell of a lot more regulations about cars than there are about guns. In my state, you can’t get a driver’s license unless you have had a temp. license for 6 months, done at least 50 hours of training with a qualified driver, and pass a knowledge-based test, an experiential test, and a physical test for visual acuity. Then, you have to get your license renewed periodically, and there are dozens of infractions that can restrict, temporarily remove, or permanently suspend your privilege to drive a car.

All you need to get a gun is enough money. Don’t even need the background check if you’re in the right state and with the right seller.

It’s the same motivation that leads to skydiving and driving too fast, Ingdigo Jump. There’s nothing in the artifact, or even the act of operation that is itself wrong. The challenge is taking into consideration the negative externalities of the act.

There are two, in my mind, equally childish stances: “I can do anything I want with firearms” and “No one should do anything with firearms”. I think a better system would be to strongly discourage individual ownership of firearms (in need not be outright banned, you could mirror things in England) in favor of club ownership. With the proper regulation, clubs could be forced into creating a safe environment- as safe as an environment with high kinetic energy projectiles can be. Accident records would quickly allow us to crack down on unsafe clubs and put barriers up to prevent incautious members from corrupting other clubs.

The first step is safety. The second step is fun.

So there you have it, someone who enjoys firearms that is against private ownership thereof.

Not everybody are responsible enough to drive a car, every day innocent people gets killed because an asshole got in the car after a bottle of Scotch or because he thought he could do 150 through a residential area. Should I also be against cars?

You should probably be in favout of some kind of system of testing and licencing drives so that we can weed out some of the irresponsible ones and reduce the amount of damage they’re able to cause with cars.

Also, it’s worth poining out that cars are useful, even if you don’t intend to destroy things with them. The fact that they’re dangerous is an unavoidable side-effect of their size and speed; guns on the other hand have no purpose other to cause destruction, and using them “correctly” and “responsibly” still destroys things.

Actually, when I hear of this kind of thing happening, I DO think “all gun owners are responsible.”

Agreed. If they were a bunch of children or comatose patients or something, then sure, they’d be irresponsible: they can’t reasonably be held responsible or accountable for whatever they’re doing. But these gun-fetishists are just ordinary adults in ordinary circumstances who’ve done something wrong, and they certainly are responsible for that. Being wrong doesn’t mean, in any coherent sense, that they’re “irresponsible,” just wrong.

The NRA can be blamed for the proliferation of weapons that led to this guy acquiring one, but they’ve taught people not to engage in this behavior for over a century. Their number one rule of gun safety is:

Also worth pointing out that auto companies have some responsibility to ensure safety of their products, including recall. IIRC gun manufacturers have been rather slow and resistant to updating designs for the purposes of safety or security.

Please, don’t bring up the idiotic car argument. Yes, the yearly death toll for cars is about the same as the yearly death toll for guns. But there are millions of vehicle miles driven every year, millions of people use a car every single day and nearly everyone is involved with automotive traffic in some way every day, whether as a driver, passenger, or pedestrian. There are dramatically more opportunities to be killed by a car every day than by a gun, but about the same number of deaths. In other words, cars are significantly safer than guns. They also enable people to contribute to the economy, to get to where they’re going quickly and easily (relatively speaking), to participate in any number of activities – in many places they are basically necessary to survival.

Guns, on the other hand, are made to kill and used almost exclusively for recreational purposes, by a relatively small proportion of the population.

Meanwhile, you have to pass a test to be given a license to operate a motor vehicle, your car must be licensed, you must carry basic liability insurance, your car is listed in a massive database, along with ownership information, and your right to drive can be taken away for any number of offenses that demonstrate that you’re irresponsible. To own a gun you have to show up at a gun show with enough money and your right to own basically won’t be taken away unless you commit a serious crime with the gun. Dick Cheney shot a man in the face because he was so irresponsible and he still owns guns. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if after this all shakes out, the guy in this story can still go out and buy a handgun. For fuck’s sake, George Zimmerman right now owns a fucking handgun.

And cars have to meet any number of strict rules for safety before they can be sold or operated on public roads.

So if you want to make that comparison, first be aware that it’s a false analogy, cars are much safer and have a real, demonstrable beneficial purpose for most people. Second, I’m sure you’ll accept that we should have no more right to a gun than to a car, since they’re much less necessary and support laws that are just as strict on gun ownership as on car ownership.

Might I suggest that there is a break down of
a) people who have a delusional view of their competency and thus own in blissful ignorance
b) People with a realistic view that are responsible
c) People with a realistic view who do not own

Ed Seedhouse @18:
your entire comment reads as very dismissive of this situation. This was not a case of stupidity. Nor was it a case of “the universe imposing the death penalty” (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean-the “universe” is not a conscious being capable of imposing anything).
This was yet another case of a reckless, irresponsible gun fondler who-through actions entirely his own-killed a child.
The universe did not do that.
Chad Olm did that.

****
Eirik:
Given the lethal nature of guns, the high levels of gun violence facing the US, the public health threat of firearms, and the fact that-aside from select occupations-the vast majority of people do not *need* guns (most people do not hunt for food, a collection of guns will not hold off a hypothetical war against the government, and gun ownership does not lead to enhanced safety)–these are reasons you should be against guns.

Olm said that when the nephew reached out for the gun, he pulled the trigger

Why the fuck did he pull the trigger?

Because he was “playing”. He just wanted his kid to jump, hearing the “click” of the hammer on the “empty” chamber.
;-(
— Even IF it happened that way, is that still a responsible way to teach a way to handle a gun?
> [simple answer] –> NO, it is NOT.
Even gun-owners [and NRA] gotta agree; if you want to own a gun, learn how to USE it, never PLAY with it. It is a TOOL, not a TOY. Never demonstrate how NOT to use a gun; kids just love to imitate, even the naughty things they see. Use that imitative behavior; by showing them that the proper way to handle guns is to treat it with great fear; whichever end of the barrel you’re at.

Last time when my 11 year old nephew was visiting for holiday, I built him a bamboo bow and arrows tipped with corks. It was able to shoot he arrow no more than 20 meters, so it was pretty safe. Nevertheless I spent significant ammount of time to explain that under no circumstances whatsoever shall he point this toy weapon on anything living or fragile, not even in jest. And my 11 year old nephew had a lot of fun with shooting baloon, an apple and a hoop – under observation at all times. It was fun and educational at the same time.

I cannot imagine that instead of this I would brag with my guns (which I do not have and do not want to) to him and shoot him in the head. That is not what a loving and responsible uncle does, and I do not understand the mindset leading to this.

There is no such thing as “too safe” when it comes to projectile weapons. One would think this is pretty basic stuff, yet each year something tragic like this comes in the news from US. Last year it was little girl shot by her brother.

So if you want to make that comparison, first be aware that it’s a false analogy, cars are much safer and have a real, demonstrable beneficial purpose for most people. Second, I’m sure you’ll accept that we should have no more right to a gun than to a car, since they’re much less necessary and support laws that are just as strict on gun ownership as on car ownership.

Also, nobody goes around defending cars by claiming in effect that anyone who does get into an accident is the moral equivalent of a toddler. Ordinary people are responsible for gun injuries and deaths. They are not “irresponsible” for those injuries and deaths, because that doesn’t even make sense. What you’re doing when you talk about “responsible gun owners” is infantalizing or dehumanizing anybody who makes a mistake. But this isn’t a problem for some weird Other that is “not responsible”; it’s a problem for real adult human beings, like you and me, who are.

Sooo…
Cars are OK because there are regulations, while guns should be banned because there are none? Why not regulate guns instead? Guns aren’t the real problem, other countries have lots of guns without being close to having the same problems you have.

It doesn’t frigging matter if you don’t point you imaginary dick at someone or not, you are as dangerous as all other gun nuts, when you glorify guns you are problem. Eirik van der Meer are the pieces of the gun culture, there nothing to be proud about owning a gun.
There is nothing to be proud about part of despicable culture, the gun culture. To stop the gun violence, need to control flow of guns, for that first need to stop this gun culture, to stop the gun culture first need to stop the guns. I don’t see any ending to this.
My assessment is new generation in distant future will tired of these gun culture after immense life and blood lose when population of America reaches near Billion, then getting rid of 2nd amendment is inevitable, that might come in 70~90 years from now, until then ugly gun culture will continue in america, this ugly gun culture will be remembered like slavery in the future, people will be wondering at that time how could their ancestors, us, so fond of this despicable, odious and ugly gun culture.

Cars are OK because there are regulations, while guns should be banned because there are none? Why not regulate guns instead?

Sorry, apparently my post was too long so you didn’t read all the way to the part where I advocated regulation. Do you have a citation for someone responding to you that we ought to outright ban all guns everywhere, or did you just invent that strawman? Also, you missed the part where I said cars are OK because they are much safer than guns and have a general and important utilitarian purpose for most people. I must learn to be more brief.

Guns aren’t the real problem, other countries have lots of guns without being close to having the same problems you have.

As others have noted, a big part of our problem is gun culture, not just gun ownership. However I’m not sure how many other places have as widespread gun ownership or as lax regulation, nor how places with fairly free gun ownership compare to say, the UK where there is very close to a complete ban.

Eirik:
Perhaps you can answer this: what is your purpose for drawing a comparison between guns and cars? The primary function of cars is transportation. The primary function of guns is to cause death and/or destruction.

I think there are a lot of very responsible gun owners. Responsible as they are, I think they should be willing to accept some regulation and restriction to safeguard the rest of us from the pack of idiots who keep shooting us.

None of my guns were bought with any intention of hurting another person, in my eyes they are inanimate objects without any purpose other than my own.

So what’s your purpose? Putting them on a shelf to look pretty? They don’t need to be functional guns to do that. If you fire a gun you’re unleashing a projectile that at the end of its flight is going to make contact with something, to which it will bring death and/or destruction.

Gussnarp:
(re- banning guns)
I am firmly anti-gun and support a revision of the 2nd Amendment and even I would not call for a full ban on guns. I think owning guns should be a privilege that is earned not a right and that gun use-aside from law enforcement and military-should be limited to shooting ranges. I support universal background checks (no gun show loopholes), mandatory firearm safety classes, psychological evaluation prior to gun ownership, and a waiting period before being able to obtain a gun.

I don’t see why we have to single out gun owners when things like this happen. Responsible power tool owners do this kind of thing all the time. Just the other day a friend of mine was showing off his power tools to his nephew. While demonstrating his prized DeWalt Heavy Duty Drill, he jokingly said to the young fellow ‘oh look, there’s a pilot hole on your forehead’. He then held the drill up to the boy’s head like he was going to start drilling. It was all in good fun. The tragedy that ensued when the boy made a grab for the drill could have happened to anybody.

Cars are OK because there are regulations, while guns should be banned because there are none?

Cars are OK because they have a use other than killing things, and they’re far less likely to kill things than guns.

Why not regulate guns instead?

Because the NRA.

Guns aren’t the real problem, other countries have lots of guns without being close to having the same problems you have.

Sure, lets look at Swizerland as a prime example. High gun ownership coupled with strict regulation – every gun sold has its balistics prfile on record with the government, all ammunition sales are reported to the government (except for ammo sold at a shooting range, but it’s illegal to take that off the premises)… and their firearm homicde rate is barely eight times higher than the next highest country in Europe!

Erik van der Meer, I’m not going to respond to ridiculous comparisons to cars, not only for obvious reasons but because it’s already been done.

I get it, you really, really like guns. You enjoy them. You also enjoy hunting. That’s reprehensible. And no, I won’t argue with you about that, either. You don’t glorify guns; you enjoy them.

You may not find it so, but that is a disturbing word choice …decidedly disturbing. I submit that like remyporter, you’re also part of them problem. Like it or not, you are most certainly part of gun culture.

As for the purpose of cars, a lot of driving is purely recreational. What’s the real difference between recreational driving and recreational shooting?

A lot of driving isn’t recreational. There is no prohibition of recreational driving, because there is a very great social need for non-recreational driving. We don’t need recreational shooting, but we also don’t need shooting of the “non-recreational” type, which amounts to killing or injuring people (not to mention the cases of “recreational” shooting which also result in killing or injuring people).

And target shooting involves no destruction of the target, and, hunting involves no killing of the prey? What is your Target: puffs of smoke? What are you hunting; snipe?
Even shooting locks involves destroying the lock. What is a gun useful for building, as opposed to destroying?
[nailguns don’t count]

Oh god, that’s horrible. That poor kid :(
Normally I’d have stuff to say about how guns need to be treated with respect (in the wariness sense) and extreme caution, but I got nothing. This one got me in the feels.

@ rossthompson
You’re right, there is actually a lesson to be gleaned from the comparison with cars, though not one a lot of gun advocates would like to entertain. There are many cars that are not street-legal. Nitrous-boosted drag racers and track cars with slick tires etc. are enjoyed by many people, but they are too dangerous to be used as regular transportation so are kept at tracks where they can be enjoyed safely. It would be quite straightforward (from a logistical point of view) to require that all ammunition, bolts and firing pins be stored in lockers at designated ranges and clubs where people can target shoot to their hearts content. I think elite target shooters already do transport their equipment disassembled.

Of course, it would involve a significant curtailing of the second amendment and the general treatment of guns as toys, so it’s a non-starter, but one can dream.

The US represents a grotesque aberration both in the #/guns per person and /gun deaths per person. One study found that we have 89 guns/person and 10 gun deaths/10,000 people. The closest to this – Switzerland 46 guns/100 people and 3.8 deaths/10,000. Most other industrial countries are way lower than this in both categories. Of course there is no correlation with these facts and lack of regulations according to the NRA.Of course this means we need ever more liberal gun laws, and more guns in more places like Georgia. The straw man is always they are taking away our guns. Like so many other areas, we cannot face reality in America.

I think both sides of the gun control debate tend to be prone to demagoguery and paranoia. Terms like gun-fondler and gun grabber don’t do anything except inflame tensions. There’s no reason why we can’t discuss the issue without insults. As far as gun control goes, there’s probably more that could be done to ensure that guns are kept away from bad people, however, we also live in a country that promotes personal responsibility over government control. We have to decide whether we want to give up more control over our lives to the government for the promise of safety.

Perhaps you are not aware that quite a lot of people, including a lot of USAnians, including even some who post regularly on this very blog, think it would be a very good idea to strongly regulate gun ownership in USAnianland? Whereas the NRA and their adoring fans froth at the mouth at the mere suggestion of a hint of a shadow of a wee smidgen of regulation.
Practically unregulated access and a total ban – including everything from hunting shotguns to peashooters – are not the only two options, after all.
(personally I think the system I’m most familiar with, the one in the UK, seems to work reasonably well. The tiny, tiny minority of people who have a defensible reason for wanting to use a gun can fill out forms and pass a check and show that they have a secure storage facility and then get a license to use one. Afaik, people who want to target shoot for fun can do so at a licensed club that has to meet safety standards; people who want to hunt can apply for a license to keep their gun at home. No it isn’t utterly foolproof and watertight and yes there are guns in criminal hands – but they are orders of magnitude less common than in the USA and gun crime is extremely rare)

I think both sides of the gun control debate tend to be prone to demagoguery and paranoia. Terms like gun-fondler and gun grabber don’t do anything except inflame tensions. There’s no reason why we can’t discuss the issue without insults. As far as gun control goes, there’s probably more that could be done to ensure that guns are kept away from bad people, however, we also live in a country that promotes personal responsibility over government control. We have to decide whether we want to give up more control over our lives to the government for the promise of safety.

Oh well, of course. If only we could restrict gun ownership only to good people, all would be well.
Unless good people could also be stupid, or occasionally reckless, or suicidal, or careless or…. this could go on.

Ah, yes. For anyone who thinks that having a divisive opinion gets you instabanned at Pharyngula, welcome to one of the perennial hot debates!

I need to go find my “Just license and regulate the damn things already” spiel from the last thread. (Basic premise: Strict licensing and tracking of firearms, clubs, etc.)

Remyporter@36 posted a damn good response, and I think it bears repeating and some attention. To turn the car analogy on it’s head a bit: RACE CARS are both dangerous and frivolous, and their (legal) use is restricted to tracks and registered clubs here in the US. I think that would be a good model.

I personally think we should at minimum license and track them in the same way as automobiles. Operators the same. Probably stricter. But then, also try and remove the stigma of owning a gun, as long as you don’t make yourself look like an idiot. At least make it a little less distasteful to own one. Unfortunately many have the idea that they should be able to own a gun, it should not be regulated, and they should not be required to keep them safely. So I really don’t know what would be best.

Of course I have never been a gun owner and don’t know that I will be.

I’ve heard that story so many times and yet the dumbshits think they’re too clever to make that mistake (not removing the cartridge from the firing chamber). So friends and family members continue to die thanks to imbeciles with guns. This sort of thing happens with rifles as well: “duh, but it didn’t have a magazine in it!”

Look at how they are treated here, for one, though not by everyone. For another, some places I’ve worked, if someone mentioned they owned a handgun or went hunting, that person would sort of lose any friends they have. It’s not everywhere, but I’ve seen it in different places. Some of it stems from a lot of gun owners being real assholes in how they act, though, so it’s somewhat justified, such as a guy who brags about how he’s a great man for shooting his 45 at the range. Of course I could be completely misinterpreting things, so I have lost what I’m talking about and sort of wish that I didn’t speak up in the first place

But then, also try and remove the stigma of owning a gun, as long as you don’t make yourself look like an idiot.

And now reality, from Wikipedia:

The United States owns more guns per resident, at around 0.89, than any other nation in the world. The U.S. has over 50% more firearms per capita than the next two highest nations, Serbia and Yemen at about 0.55 and three times as many as major European countries such as France and Germany.

There are 89 guns per 100 people (including kids) in the USA. Yeah, I don’t think gun ownership has a ‘stigma’ attached to it in the USA. Not nearly enough of a stigma if you ask me.

That’s not even close to correct using the chart on wikipedia. Citation?

I have to admit that was from memory rather than something I was smart enough to look up. what I was misremembering was this, which is from 1992, and put Switzerland’s firearm homicide rate at 3 times the next European country they list.

There shouldn’t be a stigma against gun ownership. Why should anybody feel like a bad person just because they own a gun for self defense, or skeet shooting (like myself), or hunting, or as part of a collection? The vast majority of gun owners are people you never hear anything about because they aren’t doing anything to anyone.

The “but responsible gun owners” is the same argument as “not all Christians are like that”. We tell the moderate Christians that if they don’t want to be tarred with the same brush as the fundamentalists, they’d damned well better start fighting that fight within their own ranks to cut out the zealots or they have no excuse for being lumped in with them. Same goes for the gun owners – if you think that we need to heavily regulate and monitor gun use in this country, then go tell the NRA, not us. You cannot expect us to NOT lump you in with the “no regulation no time no how” group when the single largest association for gun owners is pouring millions of dollars each year into lobbying to prevent

There’s a reason the phrase “There’s no such thing as an unloaded gun” exists and there’s a reason the first thing you’re taught about guns (well, if you’re not raised by psychopaths) is not to fucking point them at people. That reason is careless fuckwits like this.

If the US government isn’t going to get serious about restricting which people can own which guns, how about a very simple comfuckingpulsory properly accredited state-run (perhaps by law enforcement) gun safety course as a prerequisite to a gun license (particularly in areas where you can carry)? You’d think that’d be something the NRA could get behind – then again, making people learn what to do with a gun when they aren’t shooting at things could cause a minute decrease in sales, which would make the NRA’s underwriters sad.

Well, it’s in the article. It makes me blind with rage that the reporter includes this:

Olm stated that he did not check to see if there was a round in the chamber, but said that the handgun did not have a magazine in it.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

To remind readers how inherently dangerous guns in the hands of their careless lovers can be.

Despite all the obsession over the intricacies of their firepower people still seem to forget the ability of a firearm to carry a chambered round, whether or not it has a magazine inserted. And gun lovers even tout this as an advantage for carrying more ammo–a whole magazine + 1!–while glossing over the obvious risks of constantly leaving a round chambered.

Most Glocks, such as the one in this latest tragedy, add another dimension to the idiocy of reckless handling by having no traditional safety levers, just an integrated safety lever in the trigger.

As far as gun control goes, there’s probably more that could be done to ensure that guns are kept away from bad people,

I trust you’ll let us know when you’ve invented an infallible bad people detector that will set off an alarm if a bad person tries to buy a gun. I’m also confident you’ll totally support regulations that will require gun dealers to have a working one of these devices in their stores and also make it illegal to sell a gun to anyone who sets it off.

We have to decide whether we want to give up more control over our lives to the government for the promise of safety.

Look, I’m all for protecting other people, but if the government starts taking away my “putting holes in street signs and beer cans” toy in order to save tens of thousands of lives, that’s just going too far!

All the gun nuts have to do is show me where leaving a loaded gun anywhere outside of directly control by a responsible person, like in a bed end table, or carrying concealed in public where the ammo and the gun should be separated for safety reasons, is good range safety practice, they may have a point. Otherwise, they engaging in risky behavior that can hurt/kill innocent people, which should be stopped by law.

Olm said that he pointed the laser at the walls and ceiling. And then he pointed it at his nephew.
“Look, you have a red dot on your forehead,” Olm recalled one of the boys saying.
Is there just something about guns with laser sights that attracts people who can’t operate either one safely?

You lot are pathetic. The “tard” suffix is crossing a line, but calling all gun owners sociopaths with sexual disfunction (“fiddler”) is not?

You’re all a bit too precious I reckon. You also need to learn how to socialise and pick who your real enemies are. You’ve spent too much time locked in your own worlds and have no idea there is this whole other world out there where everyone isn’t out to get you.

I suffer from MDD, have a family that has had multiple suicides… But I look at you vultures and there is no sympathy from me. You’re hate filled assholes who need to wake the fuck up.

And I own no guns. I don’t want to own any guns. I don’t think 99% of the population should be allowed to possess guns. But you lot… You take extremism to a whole new level.

And are people SERIOUSLY arguing that recreational driving does not exist on public roads? Morons.

Cars are insanely dangerous. Almost any idiot can drive on this continent. Cars should be much more tightly regulated, and alternatives like sidewalks, bike paths, buses, and trains should be made sufficiently convenient for everyone to want to use them.

Reading through this thread, I find it astounding that people like Eirik van der Meer and caesar seem to like guns very much, but don’t seem to know one very basic, essential fact about them – guns are designed to violently poke holes in things, primarily other living organisms. Yes, they can be used for target shooting and skeet shooting, etc, but that’s a byproduct of what they are actually designed for. As such, any comparison made between guns and something else is only really valid if that something else is primarily designed for causing injury or death, so the comparison made with cars is invalid from that alone, because cars are primarily transportation (and, even if that weren’t the case, it still fails as driving a car requires a license, which isn’t true of owning a gun in all US states, and there is various traffic laws for how and where to drive, as well as safety laws like seatbelt laws and childseat laws that also must be adhered to).

You lot are pathetic. The “tard” suffix is crossing a line, but calling all gun owners sociopaths with sexual disfunction (“fiddler”) is not?[1]

You’re all a bit too precious I reckon. You also need to learn how to socialise and pick who your real enemies are. You’ve spent too much time locked in your own worlds and have no idea there is this whole other world out there where everyone isn’t out to get you.[2]

I suffer from MDD, have a family that has had multiple suicides… But I look at you vultures and there is no sympathy from me. You’re hate filled assholes who need to wake the fuck up. [3]

And I own no guns. I don’t want to own any guns. I don’t think 99% of the population should be allowed to possess guns. But you lot… You take extremism to a whole new level.

And are people SERIOUSLY arguing that recreational driving does not exist on public roads? Morons.[4]

1) I’m curious how you got from ‘fondle’ to ‘sexual dysfunction.’ (The only instance of “fiddler” I see is yours, so I’m assuming you mean “fondler.”) In any case, I don’t see “fondler” used as a slur against disadvantaged groups much. “Retarded” often is.

2) You seem to be describing paranoia or a persecution complex (inclusive or), but no one her has engaged in any such thing. No one here is worried about people out to get them. Many of us are worried about a proliferation of gun ownership, but that’s a matter of stochastics: lots of guns with with little regulation leads to a greater number of gun deaths.

3) I’m assuming you’re referring to another commenter referencing suicide via gun rates. I’m not sure what you’re problem is, as you don’t bother to explain. However, speaking as someone who was suicidal for an extended period of time, I’m glad my family didn’t own a gun.

4) Holy shit, you’re just stupid. No one claimed that. Several people asked for a citation showing that recreational driving occurred at a similar rate to recreational gun ownership. “…[T]hat recreational driving does not exist on public roads” is not something anyone argued.

We have to decide whether we want to give up more control over our lives to the government for the promise of safety.

Given that the “control” given up is infinitesimally small, and that the “promise of safety” has absolutely incontrovertible evidence behind it, it seems like an easy decision.

You’ve spent too much time locked in your own worlds and have no idea there is this whole other world out there where everyone isn’t out to get you.

A better description of the idiots who think that their AR-15s will topple the US government than the commentariat here, really.

But you lot… You take extremism to a whole new level.

So you seem to actually agree with a majority here on the substantive issue, but somehow, everyone else is a whole new level of extremism? Explain.

And are people SERIOUSLY arguing that recreational driving does not exist on public roads? Morons.

Read for comprehension. The requested citation was to the claim that a substantial proportion of driving was purely recreational, in the same sense that a substantial proportion of gun ownership is (the use of “a lot” implies that; if the implication wasn’t intended, s/he should have worded it better). Clearly recreational driving exists. But to claim that the proportion of driving (which has a myriad of practical uses, necessary for a large proportion of Americans who live in areas without good public transit) that is recreational is comparable to the proportion of shooting (much more specialized outside police/military applications, and applying to only the small fraction of Americans who live in purely rural areas) which is recreational? That claim is extraordinary in every sense of the term.

And are people SERIOUSLY arguing that recreational driving does not exist on public roads? Morons.

May I recommend that you read for comprehension in the future? The only mentions of recreational driving have been as a) an inane comparison to recreational shooting and b) as part of several people registering their dismay that anyone could fail to see a difference between recreational driving and recreational shooting.

@109: As I recall, this was the reason why I quit the NRA. There was a schism that occurred within the organization. One branch wanted to focus on issues such as gun safety, responsible gun ownership and the like. The other branch wanted to burn the house down in order to “protect” the 2nd Amendment.

The latter branch won out. The result is what you see today. And why I’m not an NRA member.

Kevin Kehres, do you happen to have a vague timeline of when that happened? I know that for at least the last decade the NRA has been obviously far right-wing but I wasn’t paying attention long enough before that to know when that transition occurred.

LOL. Predictable. I’m not offended because nothing anyone has said is offensive to me. I just think you lot are antisocial assholes. Which is a damn shame ’cause FTB as a whole is good, but the commentariat bring the place down.

“Substantial” is not a precise term. But you all decided it was and spent the next few posts abusing someone for using it.

You lot think you’re way of talking to people with a different opinion is appropriate? It’s not.

And “fondle” in the way it was used absolutely has sexual inference. More so than “x-tard” being a slur on disabled people.

You want to know who the real enemies are? They aren’t the people using “x-tard”. They aren’t the people who think there is a middle ground between American gun ownership conditions and complete bans.They aren’t the people who use simple comparisons to address a point that aren’t 100% irrefutable.

Seriously, the car analogy DOES have a small amount of value if you aren’t a fucking pedant. Try to see the point instead of attacking the semantics.

Damn eyes. They’re freaking leaking over here. I can’t imagine what it would be like to find out your kid was shot by your brother out of some serious fucking negligence. He looked like a handsome young lad.

And I own no guns. I don’t want to own any guns. I don’t think 99% of the population should be allowed to possess guns. But you lot… You take extremism to a whole new level.

Yes, we take extremism to the level of wanting it to be slightly more difficult for people to get guns. Maybe requiring some indication that the buyer understands why pointing a gun at a child’s head and pulling the fucking trigger might be a bad idea….

I just think you lot are antisocial assholes. Which is a damn shame ’cause FTB as a whole is good, but the commentariat bring the place down.

Your concern is noted. If that’s all you’ve got, might I suggest your general meta-critiques of the personality flaws of our community to the Thunderdome? Because it is pretty much irrelevant to the actual topic at hand.

You lot think you’re way of talking to people with a different opinion is appropriate? It’s not.

You think your way of talking to people is substantially and significantly better? It isn’t.

And “fondle” in the way it was used absolutely has sexual inference.

So just saying “no, I am right” huh? Great argumentation. As always, the Arbiters of True Perfect Communication really put us to shame.

You want to know who the real enemies are? They aren’t the people using “x-tard”. They aren’t the people who think there is a middle ground between American gun ownership conditions and complete bans.They aren’t the people who use simple comparisons to address a point that aren’t 100% irrefutable.

You want to know who the real enemies are? They aren’t the people using “x-tard”. They aren’t the people who think there is a middle ground between American gun ownership conditions and complete bans.They aren’t the people who use simple comparisons to address a point that aren’t 100% irrefutable.

Seriously, the car analogy DOES have a small amount of value if you aren’t a fucking pedant. Try to see the point instead of attacking the semantics.

I do believe this is an example of an own goal. But your incoherent rambling makes it difficult to tell.

“Substantial” is not a precise term. But you all decided it was and spent the next few posts abusing someone for using it.

just xir way of BAAAWing about this:

Read for comprehension. The requested citation was to the claim that a substantial proportion of driving was purely recreational, in the same sense that a substantial proportion of gun ownership is (the use of “a lot” implies that; if the implication wasn’t intended, s/he should have worded it better). Clearly recreational driving exists.

Because if so, it makes the comment preceding a tad more ironic

LOL. Predictable. I’m not offended because nothing anyone has said is offensive to me. I just think you lot are antisocial assholes.

Because if so, Zee Low really is just super thin-skinned. Which, as Zee Low puts, is very predictable.

If your favorite method of putting holes in paper was determined to be a public health risk, would you give it up and find another?

To be fair, I don’t think this is entirely necessary. I think it was Remy upthread that advocated for a move away from individual ownership to club ownership. For people who aren’t into delusions of self-defense and other assorted dangerous fantasies, this is one possible solution (a great model for this is the UK; there are a number of excellent rifle/handgun clubs). It seems obvious to me that there would be restrictions on what weapons could be owned; anyone who feels an urge to use military style weapons (and I get seriously nervous around people with that urge) really ought to join the military. There’s no reason a rifle club should have anything bigger than a .22LR for target shooting.

“Substantial” is not a precise term. But you all decided it was and spent the next few posts abusing someone for using it.[1]

You lot think you’re way of talking to people with a different opinion is appropriate? It’s not.[2]

And “fondle” in the way it was used absolutely has sexual inference. More so than “x-tard” being a slur on disabled people.[3]

You want to know who the real enemies are? They aren’t the people using “x-tard”.[4] They aren’t the people who think there is a middle ground between American gun ownership conditions and complete bans.They aren’t the people who use simple comparisons to address a point that aren’t 100% irrefutable.

Seriously, the car analogy DOES have a small amount of value if you aren’t a fucking pedant. Try to see the point instead of attacking the semantics.[5]

Or aren’t I allowed to say “pedant” now because half of you are OCD?[6]

1) The first use of the word “substantial” was shockna at 128. “Abuse” literally could not have been predicated upon the use of that term.

2) Asserted without argument or reason; dismissed as such.

3a) Fondling does not necessitate sexuality. That it necessarily implies sexuality to you is your own business. (Also, you probably mean “reference,” as the term “inference” makes little sense here.)

3b) Even if it did, it’s still not the same as using slurs against stigmatized groups.

4) It’s nice to know that you’ve separated the world into “real enemies” and (one assumes) “fake enemies,” but the world is rarely that simple.

5) The point has been addressed ad nauseum. Seriously, jackass, read the fucking thread.

6) That you infer obsessive-compulsive disorder from pedantry says more about yourself than it does us.

Now, do you have an actual argument to put forward, or does useless blather sit at about the limits of your capabilities?

OK, the real enemies, in the context of this thread, are the NRA, 2nd Amendment fundamentalists, and people who think “self-defence” is a valid reason for gun ownership. Target shooters, hunters, farmers, and moderates are not.

And why do I think you are morons? Because when you don’t understand a point someone is making, you just go straight into attack mode. Yeah, I’m not bothering to spend hours writing so you can understand every nuance, and I freely admit that I hold nothing but contempt for a number of you so I’m happy to be a target, but FFS Eirik didn’t say anything that was that difficult to comprehend but you all jumped on Eirik like a pack of hyenas.

Someone also asked why I mentioned MDD and family suicide? It’s because I know a lot of people on here also suffer through mental health issues – both themselves and those close to them. I understand triggers, and how somethings can send you into a spiral. We all SHOULD make an effort to be more compassionate and understanding of mental health. But it DOESN’T give you an excuse to be an asshole or a bully. You being a bully/asshole though does give others the right to call you out on it.

You want communication here to improve? Pick your goddamn enemies better. If you don’t understand someone, don’t go straight on the attack – even if you feel attacked.

… And “citation sorely fucking needed” is becoming such an ugly indicator of pedantry that it’s lost all meaning.

A summary of the ad:
“Do you still believe in The Good Guys? Because people are locking doors and worrying about mad men and hypocrites and bullies! Because FILTHY CRIMES are afoot and Teh Criminals are taking advantage of law-abiding citizens! ‘The Good Guys are a lie’, they say! But do you believe in good guys, like a teacher who stops a cheater, the parents who work two jobs, and omg dead soldiers *crying eagle 9/11 flag*. Because there are such Heroes, who reject the world. Beliebe in teh Good Guys of True America, Teh NRA…of America!”

“Fiddle” has a pretty common usage analogous to “fidget”. It is also commonly used in the term “kiddy fiddler”. Confusing “fiddler” and “fondler” is not that unreasonable that it deserves a bunch of people shouting down the mistake, but I appreciate you all trying so hard.

OK, the real enemies, in the context of this thread, are the NRA, 2nd Amendment fundamentalists, and people who think “self-defence” is a valid reason for gun ownership. Target shooters, hunters, farmers, and moderates are not.

Insofar as target shooters, hunters, and “moderates” like to use their love of their hobby as a impetus to handwave away complaints against the NRA, and to tut-tut people advocating for gun control: Yes, those are still “the real enemies”, in so far as they are allying themselves and defending the other “real enemies”.

And why do I think you are morons? Because when you don’t understand a point someone is making, you just go straight into attack mode.

The extent to which cars and guns are similar is pretty much this: they are both dangerous tools. As such, regulation in proportion to the danger they represent is justified. Guns, however, are literally designed to be dangerous, and serve no purpose outside the danger they represent. The ownership of guns is often justified under the heading of “recreational use.” The ownership of cars is not justified that way. It is not apparent that cars are used recreationally to a similar extent that guns are, and cars that are used recreationally are also used pragmatically (i.e. for transportation).

For these reasons, the comparison is weak at best.

Someone also asked why I mentioned MDD and family suicide? It’s because I know a lot of people on here also suffer through mental health issues – both themselves and those close to them. I understand triggers, and how somethings can send you into a spiral. We all SHOULD make an effort to be more compassionate and understanding of mental health. But it DOESN’T give you an excuse to be an asshole or a bully. You being a bully/asshole though does give others the right to call you out on it.

Are you aware that this has almost no relevance to anything in this thread?

… And “citation sorely fucking needed” is becoming such an ugly indicator of pedantry that it’s lost all meaning.

Confusing “fiddler” and “fondler” is not that unreasonable that it deserves a bunch of people shouting down the mistake,

If you think you’ve been “shouted down” for that mistake, again, it is proof that you have incredibly thin-skin. Is tone trolling really all you can muster here? Aside from completely misreading other people’s arguments (case in point: your preceding “fondle” argument), which is yet more evidence that you are way too defensive and prone to over-reacting to criticism in such a way that you can’t even get an accurate read on what the criticism actually is?

OK, the real enemies, in the context of this thread, are the NRA, 2nd Amendment fundamentalists, and people who think “self-defence” is a valid reason for gun ownership. Target shooters, hunters, farmers, and moderates are not.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Now, if there was substantial overlap between these two groups, then you would have gone and said something pretty stupid.

But I think we can all agree that the NRA doesn’t have target shooters, hunters, farmers, or moderates among its membership.
Or that target shooters, hunters, and farmers never claim the unassailability of the 2nd Amendment.
Or that anyone in any of those groups ever believes in the self-defense argument for firearm ownership.

You need to understand the difference between someone arguing a concept and someone making a statement of fact. The argument regarding a “substantial” number of road users being recreational – the key point there was a concept, not whether or not the total number of recreational road users could scientifically be described as “substantial”. Or was the “intellectually honest” person asking for the citation genuinely of the belief that the number was miniscule?

Wow, two from two showing that “fondle” does indeed have sexual connotations. But when you lot say it it doesn’t.[1] And when someone else says “substantial” they really mean “overwhelming majority”[2]

1) From your own definitions:

“to touch or handle (something) in a gentle way”

“1. (tr) to touch or stroke tenderly; caress
2. (intr) to act in a loving manner”

From the people who responded to you:

“One: it is “fondler” Two: “fondling” is not inherently sexual Three: “fondling” even when sexual has nothing to do with sexual dysfunction”

“Fondling does not necessitate sexuality.”

I’m thinking you either don’t know what “inherently” and “necessarily” means, or you don’t know what “connotation” means.

2) As I noted, the first use of the word “substantial” was shockna at 128. At no point was anyone berated for the use of that word. Further, at no point did anyone assert that “substantial” meant “overwhelming majority.”

Substantial means exactly what shockna originally explained they were using it as a synonym for: “a lot”.

Not most, not nearly all, “a lot”.

Eff Hi Red, did it ever occur to you that you are the one who is not understanding what is going on here? Did it ever occur to you that you are wrong and have misinterpreted the conversation? Because, judging by how you are dealing with your own addition to this conversation, I am having an increasingly hard time trusting your assessment that we were “too mean” or whatever (whereas before I was willing to concede that you had a point, but it was an irrelevant one). If you could look at yourself from a distance, if you could see yourself as we see you, you might start to doubt your own credibility. But we all have blinders. Yours just seem to be very effective right now.

The inference that a gun is a sexual tool to be fondled absolutely is about sexual dysfunction.

I don’t think you know what “inference” means. It’s not a synonym for “implication.” Also, rather than asserting this as fact, you could always answer my question: “How do you infer ‘sexual dysfunction’ from ‘fondler?’“

I have no problem with you wanting a ban on all guns. If I had a choice between the ridiculous system in the USA vs banning all guns, I’d choose to ban all guns – the small amount of legitimate utility guns provide is just not worth it.

But there IS a small amount of legitimate utility and I don’t think that should be denied. I grew up in the Australian high country. Farmers carry rifles there to euthanise livestock. If we assume the validity of cattle and sheep farming to begin with (I accept many don’t), and we assume the validity of euthanasia (I accept many don’t), then considering the distances involved and time for a vet call-out, the utility of a gun here is pretty demonstrable. (And when I say “vet call-out” I mean call-outs for the vet to do the euthanising)

Now, these farmers keep their rifles locked up in cabinets, with firing pins and ammunition stored separately, as per Australian law (my apologies if my understanding of the law here is not 100% – it’s close). When someone says “all gun owners are part of the problem” that is both offensive and wrong. There are people out there for whom a gun is nothing but a tool to get a job done.

And that does NOT mean that I agree with people who say “a gun is just a tool”. A gun SHOULD be just a tool. That’s why we need strong regulation.

Explain further. Show your work. I’m suspecting that this conclusion is based on a handful of unfounded assumptions, but I don’t know which ones yet.

I suspect Brown means “deviance” rather than “dysfunction.” “Deviance” at least makes sense, i.e. if gun ownership is considered socially unacceptable by a given group, and that group describes gun ownership in sexual terms, that group is implying that gun ownership is a sexual deviance.

No. If you are making an argument, and using a hypothetical situation, then you don’t need to cite, because it’s not a claim to a fact. Also, if stating your own opinion, you don’t need a citation, because it’s your own goddamned opinion.

If, on the other hand, you are making a statement of fact, for instance talking about the “substantial” number of recreational drivers, then you need to cite it. Ever look at a scientific paper? If a researcher were to write “a substantial amount of drivers are on the roads for purely recreational purposes” they would either provide a citation or the data. Just because “‘Substantial’ is not a precise term” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t need a citation.

Unless of course you are using “substantial” in the sense of an opinion, where you think the number of recreational drivers is such. In that case, the term is meaningless.

10,000 drivers on American roads at one time for purely recreational purposes is “substantial”, even if it is a tiny fraction of the total number of drivers.

The point is, “substantial” is not necessarily a relative term. Something can be a substantial number while still being a minority subset.

It’s the same as saying that the number of trans people is a small fraction of a given population, but the total number is still substantial and relevant when considering legislation, healthcare needs, etc. If I WAS actually attempting to produce legislation then I WOULD need to provide a citation for this claim, but when I am discussing the rights of trans people on an internet forum? No citation required, and asking should be rightly shouted down as bigotry.

If we assume the validity of cattle and sheep farming to begin with (I accept many don’t), and we assume the validity of euthanasia (I accept many don’t), then considering the distances involved and time for a vet call-out, the utility of a gun here is pretty demonstrable

Commonly used for cattle and other livestock. The bolt is fired through the forehead causing massive disruption of the cerebral cortex. In cattle, this stuns the animal, though if left for a prolonged period it will die from cerebral oedema. Some groups such as PETA consider this unacceptable.[citation needed] Death should therefore be rapidly brought about by pithing or exsanguination. Horses are killed outright by the captive bolt, making pithing and exsanguination unnecessary

Number of human beings known that have been killed with this weapon? Two.

When someone says “all gun owners are part of the problem” that is both offensive and wrong. There are people out there for whom a gun is nothing but a tool to get a job done.

And if those people insist that the fact that they can’t come up with a less dangerous tool is sufficient reason to not change the laws and let people keep dying…they are part of the problem.

I suspect part of the problem is you really just don’t grasp just how bad the debate on this issue is in the U.S. There are literally people opposed to any regulations at all. That is the NRA side. The NRA are extremists but they aren’t considered extremists. Virtually the entire Republican party agrees with them and takes the “no gun control at all” side, and mainstream Democrats certainly aren’t on the “complete gun ban” side. The dialogue is HEAVILY tilted towards the side of absolute gun “freedom” and because of our archaic Second Amendment still being on the books, they still get begrudging legal support for this position as well. The people engaging in this debate in a predominantly U.S. context are dealing with “moderates” that you would probably consider extreme. Zee, you would be considered on the radical left for even being able to entertain the possibility of a full gun ban. The “moderate” position is some pitifully small level of gun control, like stopping gun shows, having basic background checks, and banning shit like submachine guns. That’s American “moderate”. Mainstream right wing? No regulations, everything short of arbitrarily defined “military grade” weapons are legal, and they will continue to obsess about Freedom over the ridiculously high amount of gun deaths we are having in a supposedly first world country.

Even if you are aware of that, perhaps because you are used to a different context, you are a little less frazzled by this particular debate?

10,000 drivers on American roads at one time for purely recreational purposes is “substantial”, even if it is a tiny fraction of the total number of drivers.

The point is, “substantial” is not necessarily a relative term. Something can be a substantial number while still being a minority subset.

Why the fuck does it matter? I’m still waiting for you to tell me what the point of somebody else’s car analogy is. There’s a point, right? Should we ask you or that other person? You seemed very adamant that there is such a point, so that’s why I’m asking you.

I moved when I was 17 into a rural area and knew many gun owners. Not ONE is someone I would consider mature, safe with a weapon, and emotionally secure.

Actually this is related to what I was going to say about your original comment: It might be accurate if you say “insecure” in general. Not so much “sexually insecure”. Insecurity is obvious in many gun owners stated rationale for having guns (i.e. the ones preoccupied with self-defense), and of course the insecurity in some senses might be logically justified by the environment one is living in. And other times, not so much. I think there might be some evidence supporting that. But the specific, “sexual insecurity” angle…I don’t like bringing it up, and I’m not confident that it is accurate.

10,000 drivers on American roads at one time for purely recreational purposes is “substantial”, even if it is a tiny fraction of the total number of drivers.

In a sense of the word, yes. In a relevant sense of the word? No.

Its a silly argument in any case. If a “substantial” portion of drivers were driving recreationally, and this “substantial” portion was actual analogous to the portion of gun owners using their guns recreationally, the conclusion I draw is that people screwing around with dangerous machines for fun should be stopped. At best, the argument in question is silly. Realistically, Eirik seemed to try comparing two things without bothering to demonstrate that they are actually comparable.

It’s the same as saying that the number of trans people is a small fraction of a given population, but the total number is still substantial and relevant when considering legislation, healthcare needs, etc. If I WAS actually attempting to produce legislation then I WOULD need to provide a citation for this claim, but when I am discussing the rights of trans people on an internet forum? No citation required, and asking should be rightly shouted down as bigotry.

No. People wanting the right to own dangerous tools purely for fun is not comparable to a discussion about trans rights.

Fair points. I have an understanding of the American debate and it’s lack of quality, but obviously I’m removed from it. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for people that hold opinions on gun control that would be considered mainstream in almost any other country.

The only thing I’d argue there is that bolt guns (or whatever they are referred to as) are a single use item – in that they are only useful in the slaughter of captive animals. Farmers (the ones I referred to) will also use their rifle to kill feral animals such as wild dogs, foxes and deer, which all cause a great amount of damage to the Australian bush and eco-system. (As a kayaker, don’t get me started on the damage deer do to the Aussie bush… It’s a terrible situation)

Alas, they also use them to kill kangaroos and some other native wildlife. The debate about that is pretty bitter over here – both sides with valid points, both sides thinking the other is loony.

10,000 drivers on American roads at one time for purely recreational purposes is “substantial”, even if it is a tiny fraction of the total number of drivers.

Is that an actual number from somewhere? I didn’t say “substantial” had to be proportional. But even if it isn’t, it still must mean something, and you must demonstrate that the number of recreational drivers meets some definition of “substantial”.

Insecurity is obvious in many gun owners stated rationale for having guns (i.e. the ones preoccupied with self-defense), and of course the insecurity in some senses might be logically justified by the environment one is living in.

I’d like to know why my 8 year old nephew has (for years) really, desperately wanted a gun. It’s presumably to be like his older brother who has a gun, or to be like other men in the family (or maybe in school) who have guns. I know the older brother also wanted one, just about as soon as he could put the words together and spit them out. Not even a peep about it from my niece. I doubt that has anything to do with self-defense.

Farmers (the ones I referred to) will also use their rifle to kill feral animals such as wild dogs, foxes and deer, which all cause a great amount of damage to the Australian bush and eco-system.

That actually hadn’t occurred to me, so good point! The captive bolt is definitely impractical for anything aside from stunning/euthanizing. Maybe cracking nuts? Not much else to use it for, so probably not the best investment from that angle. Maybe when we invent the Anti-Wild Animal Ray…

But the specific, “sexual insecurity” angle…I don’t like bringing it up, and I’m not confident that it is accurate.

I don’t mind bringing it up.

“Male culture” in America, if you want to call it that, is clearly full of insecurity and a lot of it is sexual, especially if you expand “sexual” to what people tend to think of as secondary sexual characteristics.
Guns are as much a part of that as muscle cars and treating women like shit.

It’s kind of like the common claim that “homophobes are all closet cases.”
Obviously not true of all, and not a good thing to say the way people keep saying it… but definitely true for many.

Another anecdote… the worst homophobe I ever knew (apart from his cousin who literally “gay bashed” – picked up and beat up gay men) used to pay me for letting him suck my dick.
His gay-bashing cousin had done the same (though not with me).

(For clarity: I meant “i.e. self defense” to mean that “self-defense” was an example of one of the rationales that relate to insecurity of some kind. Not the only version. And, of course, as your example illustrates, because gun ownership fits within certain cultural narratives [and because it is almost necessary in certain professions] I would certainly also argue that most gun owners are not insecure.)

Pro-gun people will say that cars kill people too.
Anti-gun people counter that cars have high utility.
Pro-gun people point out that there are people who (at times) use cars for purely recreational means, so if it’s purely about utility then surely we should ban recreational driving. Or ban high-performance cars.
Anti-gun people blather on about race-tracks, the need for citations, etc, ignoring the fact that some people do indeed use public roads for recreational purposes.

Do you not see the similarity?

Guns have a small amount of utility. If the debate is open gun ownership vs total ban, then I side with total ban. But if the debate is total ban vs highly regulated, I’ll go with regulation because there IS some non-recreational use for guns.

The analogy is valid because cars ARE regulated. We licence people. In Australia we limit how powerful cars driven by inexperienced drivers can be. Cars need to be in a fit condition to drive on the road. Drivers do too. We have speed limits, traffic lights. We can’t drive on the footpath, or through shopping malls. We can’t drive drunk. Or high. Or if we have conditions that make it dangerous for us to do so like vision impairment or (some forms of) epilepsy.

The comparisons are valid because both are dangerous tools that require society as a whole to step in and control them. The comparisons are there because people can’t be trusted to be responsible on their own.

Boy am I glad that none of my inalienable rights as a US Citizen — including my right to keep and bear arms — hinge on the opinions of some of the folks commenting here. Some of the comments are full of enough histrionics to wring their way through several pairs of hands.

It’s a double edged point though. They use them for (what I believe to be) valid cases of pest control, but I don’t know of any who don’t also use them to kill kangaroos.

But deer in many parts of Australia is becoming a major problem. Our soil, rainfall levels, etc, aren’t able to handle the impact they have on our river banks and hillsides. And when did they become a major problem? When the rules on shooting them were tightened to an extreme level. And how did those rules come about? Many argue that it was the deer hunting lobby who wanted to increase numbers so they could have more luck on their stalking trips…

Anti-gun people blather on about race-tracks, the need for citations, etc, ignoring the fact that some people do indeed use public roads for recreational purposes.

Could you actually quote someone doing this? Point to someone’s words that effectively “[ignore] the fact that some people do indeed use public roads for recreational purposes.” At this point, you’ve been told explicitly that your silly interpretation does not reflect what was actually written. Hopefully actually trying to substantiate your claim will get through to you.

No, the number was not from anywhere. It baffles me that anyone would think it was. Seriously, it does. I just don’t understand how it was ever implied that number was anything other than a made up number to illustrate a concept.

nomennescio: Yes, congratulations on having your odious politics being closer to mainstream. It means you get to go home, watch the news, and squeal out in glee while you watch story after story of unnecessary gun deaths occurring in the name of FREEEEEEEEDOM. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition. There is no God but GOP, and NRA is its Profit.

Blood is on your fucking hands, and you are so gleeful about it. Fucking scumbag.

This is atrocious. I used to hunt with my dad, and the first rule of handling a rifle were “do not point a gun at anything you don’t intend to kill, even if you’re absolutely certain it’s not loaded.” And Nomennescio, I’m so glad you think your “inalienable” right to own whatever gun you want is more important than keeping children from getting killed. You do realize that the 2nd amendment was written at a time when guns took about a minute to reload between rounds? Some pretty strong regulation is in order. There is absolutely no reason that gun ownership should not require training, licensing, and insurance. It’s time for this country to get its damn priorities straight.

82 and 96 both referred to race cars getting special laws to control their use and keep them off public roads. But I can buy* any number of street legal cars that are only designed to go fast and have limited practical purpose. No-one has a practical need for a 300+kw V8, just like no-one has a practical need for a .357 handgun or a 50cal sniper rifle.

* Or at least, I wish I could buy them, but I’m not that well off. j/k

As I said, I’d like to know what’s happening there. I pretty much agree with you, including when you said this, which unfortunately I didn’t copy into my quote:

And other times, not so much.

There’s a whole lot of different things the environment can do besides cause people to feel insecure, and the relevance of those effects to each other isn’t really at issue. The relevant thing is just that these different social and psychological motivations all pertain to gun ownership, not that they must have anything fundamental in common besides that.

I don’t exactly know what you mean by “sexual insecurity,” but I wouldn’t describe it that way for children like the example I gave, because sexuality is not even in the picture at that point, much less insecurity about it. It has to do with gender expectations, but that’s of course not the same thing (and I doubt that’s what you meant by it anyway).

But I do think cultural attitudes about guns are instilled very early in people, so their stated rationales later in life probably aren’t going to explain very much about it. They can do all sorts of introspecting and firmly believe they have some fantastic reason for why they have guns (or don’t have guns), but that doesn’t mean they’re telling themselves the real story.

Yes, congratulations on having your odious politics being closer to mainstream. It means you get to go home, watch the news, and squeal out in glee while you watch story after story of unnecessary gun deaths occurring in the name of FREEEEEEEEDOM. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition. There is no God but GOP, and NRA is its Profit.

Blood is on your fucking hands, and you are so gleeful about it. Fucking scumbag.

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. I was going to point out that I’m actually in favor of stricter regulation of firearm ownership, am persona non grata at multiple gun shops due to my anti-NRA stance, and don’t vote Republican, but hey, why spoil your self-righteous little narrative?

Zee Low, we’re talking about US policy and US law.
I’m an American citizen… not only am I affected by and able (to some degree) to influence US law, I’m also a person who has to live in the culture that results from it.

I’m not going to comment on Australian gun laws because I’m not conceited enough to think I’m in a position to lecture to Australians about things that not only don’t affect me but also about which I am necessarily ignorant in comparison.

“Australia is a rare nation that has had a significant shift toward additional gun control in recent years. Following a 1996 shooting spree that left 35 Australians dead at the Port Arthur tourist location in Tasmania, the government launched a major overhaul of gun laws.

In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings; since then, there has not been a single mass shooting and the gun murder rate has continued its steady decline.

Here’s what they did: Pro-gun Conservative John Howard pushed through an ambitious gun control program. The laws banned all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and instituted strict licensing rules involving background checks and waiting periods for purchases.”

82 and 96 both referred to race cars getting special laws to control their use and keep them off public roads. But I can buy* any number of street legal cars that are only designed to go fast and have limited practical purpose. No-one has a practical need for a 300+kw V8, just like no-one has a practical need for a .357 handgun or a 50cal sniper rifle.

So you can’t actually point to anyone then? At no point within post 82 or 96 is the recreational use of cars ignored. The only point made was how the recreational use of particularly dangerous publicly available cars was extremely regulated.

It’s also worth noting that post 96 explicitly advocates regulation, and both discuss it; your statement to the effect of, “there are people who (at times) use cars for purely recreational means, so if it’s purely about utility then surely we should ban recreational driving,” is rather silly, when the actual discussion to which you are responding was about regulation, not banning.

It’s very easy way to have your point demonstrated for you, when you don’t have one.

I think that when you hear a report about somebody dying, it isn’t generally reasonable to raise some vague, content-free complaint about “histrionics.” It’s an idea, at least. What do you think about that idea?

@211: I noticed you left out the comment I was responding to. Context matters.

That evidently didn’t matter for your first comment:

Boy am I glad that none of my inalienable rights as a US Citizen — including my right to keep and bear arms — hinge on the opinions of some of the folks commenting here. Some of the comments are full of enough histrionics to wring their way through several pairs of hands.

Which of the comments are you talking about? Whichever ones they are, how the fuck would “demonstrating your point” matter to anyone but you?
If you haven’t been trolling for a response, what the fuck do you think you’ve been doing?

Do you think people shouldn’t be upset in this thread? You’re glad that we aren’t in your government — because we’re upset about guns — yet you (later) claim that you are also opposed to guns. Who the fuck cares? Who the fuck thinks that’s a demonstration of any fucking thing? And what the fuck can you actually be opposed to, if you don’t see how reasonable it is to be upset about this shit?

Is any of this starting to come together for you yet, or have I started considering too much “context” now?

The point is, “substantial” is not necessarily a relative term. Something can be a substantial number while still being a minority subset.

Wow. You want to know why people are having trouble taking you seriously? Case in point right here. “‘Substantial’ is not necessarily relative; it can totes be relative.” “Minority” is a relative term.

It starts by not assuming the person you are talking to is an idiot.

Says the person who entered this thread calling everyone morons.

See, you could try to understand MY point, or you could just pick holes in the communication. Was it “fiddle” or “fondle”? “Substantial” or “a lot”? “Inference” or whatever the fuck…”

How the ever loving fuck do you expect to communicate anything when you can’t manage to choose words that actually convey the meaning you want to communicate? Picking holes in your communication is trying to understand your point. “I don’t understand this word to mean what you apparently want it to mean. Did you mean something more like XYZ?” is trying to understand your point. Jesus fuck.

Why do I get the feeling you wouldn’t be making the same lame argument about Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) or Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)?
Was there anything specific to the findings in D.C. v. Heller you wanted to address?

The 2nd amendment cannot be interpreted in any way that supports the gun rights position.
It also cannot be interpreted in any way that supports gun control.

The 2nd amendment might as well be about the proper use of cat-o-nine-tails.
It is entirely obsolete, completely inapplicable.

It is abundantly clear to anyone who is not being deliberately dishonest for political purposes that the second amendment is about the rights of farmers, etc., in a country with NO standing army to possess muskets and whatnot in case of foreign invasion or similar.

It says absolutely NOTHING about conditions today. It is defunct. It is wholly without meaning in the modern world.

The fact that courts “interpret” the intent of the framers in various ways that pretend to pertain to the modern world is solely the result of the fact that, despite pretense otherwise, the Supreme Court is a political body that rules based on its political make-up.

THERE IS NO amendment in the constitution that addresses current weapons, current military circumstances and who may have them.
We pretend there is because nobody has the political courage to admit this, nobody has the guts to scrap it and draft and attempt to pass an amendment that is actually relevant. Not only because of fear of such a difficult task, but because of the knowledge on both sides that they could get something they don’t like, and since it WOULD be clearly interpretable, that interpretation would STICK.

So any rulings now are merely reflections of the shifting political winds.
Politicians in black robes make entirely new law each time they rule on it, pretending to be interpreting what cannot be applied to today.

THAT is why the “a well-regulated militia, being necessary” half of the 2nd amendment is ignored, even in rulings – despite the fact that it is clearly the “because” that justifies the allowing of ownership of muskets and flintlocks. That fact is too inconvenient.

The 2nd amendment doesn’t support any modern position on gun ownership rights, period.
It makes about as much sense as laws against feeding your mule in the public library without a proper harness.

If you want gun rights, you need a new amendment.
If you want gun control, you need a new amendment.

(unless you want gun control so restrictive as to only allow militiamen to have muskets – then you’re all set.)

Please explain how what you wrote regarding “substantial” there in any way contradicts/corrects/whatever what I said? How is that a case in point??

I explained it in 221, shitwit. I wasn’t trying to correct it, I was pointing out that it’s fucking incoherent.

Here are your words again:

The point is, “substantial” is not necessarily a relative term. Something can be a substantial number while still being a minority subset.

If a word is relative, it’s meaning depends on its relationship to something else. You followed the claim that “substantial” is not necessarily relative with a claim that it can still be relative (a minority). Maybe what you were trying to say is that a portion of a total can be what we’d consider “a lot” while still not being “most.” That is not, however, what you actually said.

There are a series of excellent blogs tracking a variety of shootings. This one is the most relevant to the conversation, because it tracks shootings by so called “law abiding citizens” and “responsible gun owners”, CCW carriers, range owners, and firearms instructors. All the related blogs are worth reading, there is “OOH Shoot” for unintentional shootings (never call them accidental), and “Kid Shootings” for, well, when kids shoot or get shot.
Warning: you may never be able to feel safe from guns again.http://alawabidingcitizen.blogspot.com

I never liked guns, nor wanted one, nor saw a need for one. When a neighbor moved in a super aggressive, (fake) service pit bull (which he fights), only 8 parking spots down from my apartment (where large dogs are banned) I considered it for an instant. After being in 2 nasty pit bull attacks, one nearly fatal, leaving permanent damage, it wasn’t an insane idea. Lots of pit attacks are stopped by bystanders that are armed (unlike with people).

It was still an easy choice NOT to get a gun, ever. The odds of being killed, killing my kid, killing another kid, or shooting a bystander, is just too great, especially in an urban environment. *It’s important not to increase risk, in order to lower it in other ways.* People often forget this when they talk about using guns for self defense. What good is a gun if your kid/you are more likely to be killed by it? For a woman, the numbers are even more grave.

The odds of your kid being killed by a pit bull in your home is equal to them being killed by an unlocked, loaded firearm in the home…..
If you do not own a pit, why take a chance with a gun?

Boy am I glad that none of my inalienable rights as a US Citizen — including my right to keep and bear arms — hinge on the opinions of some of the folks commenting here. Some of the comments are full of enough histrionics to wring their way through several pairs of hands.

“Jeez, some kids got killed. It wasn’t my kid, I’m not upset – if it wasn’t yours, why are you so worked up?”

Y’see, I’m under the – possibly mistaken – impression that the occasional governing document set forth by the US says that that kid had the inalienable right to live. When these rights conflict, it’s always interesting to see which right people prefer to support.
Says a lot about what they consider important – their right to own guns, or other people’s right to live.

Your right to bear arms may very well hang on the collective voice of the people.
Your (or my, or anyone’s) right to live hangs moment-to-moment on the opinion and care and caution of any individual gun wielder in your line-of-sight.
That’s a substantial difference.

Now is NOT the time to talk about more restrictions on our rights. Let’s just get off our political high horses for a minute and let this family grieve in peace.

Can you imagine saying that for other politically-charged deaths? Like, “Oh, that sucks that so-and-so was beaten to death for being [the wrong sexuality/gender/race/religion], but let’s not talk about that and just let the family grieve.” It’s an insult to the family if the reasons for the loved one’s death are swept under the rug.

I’m a Southerner, and in my more ignorant days, I was avidly pro-gun. As time goes on, I’ve found that there are fewer and fewer reasons to justify owning guns that satisfy me (for example, as a poor country, we did occasionally hunt deer for subsidence), and even then, it seems uncontroversial that there should be regulations involved in ownership. I can’t drive a car around without passing tests, and cars weren’t specifically designed to kill living beings.

I myself own a single gun, a .380 that I inherited from my father when he died, and he in turn had inherited it from my grandfather. I keep it unloaded, with no ammunition, in a locked safe kept out-of-reach in my closet. And you know what? I really wouldn’t care if the government decided to confiscate it. I loved my father dearly (and he died relatively young and unexpectedly — although it feels foolish to say that about a 45-year-old when an 11-year-old dies from a bullet to the face), so although I might could reasonably argue emotional reasons for my “need” to keep the gun, I understand that he’s not the gun and it never represented (and in fact, couldn’t) anything substantial in our relationship.

By the way, what are the chances that this asshole actually sees jail time? I see that he’s been charged with “criminal homicide, recklessly endangering another person and endangering the welfare of children”.

Guns have a small amount of utility. If the debate is open gun ownership vs total ban, then I side with total ban. But if the debate is total ban vs highly regulated, I’ll go with regulation because there IS some non-recreational use for guns.

Just to be clear, you’re arguing for stricter gun controls than 90% of the people in this thread, while simultaniously accusing them of being too extreme.

People who actually live in America know there’s no chance of actual gun bans, or even of guns being “highly regulated”, so we’re pushing for modest regulation. Like requiring background checks before people buy guns, or requiring gun owners to take gun safety classes. That is the extreme anti-American right-wing position that makes politicians too anti-gun to be electable in this country.

Those are the published gun deaths I could find in the U.S. of children 12 or younger in an arbitrarily selected one-month period last year.

You can argue all day about social conditions, bad parenting, and the right for citizens to have guns ready for the day their votes are no longer the majority. But the simple fact is that these kids (and Chad Olm’s nephew) would be alive if our country didn’t love guns so much.

For those arguing about Second Amendment rights, let’s not lose track of the fact that these children lost ALL their rights.

Yeah, that question was rhetorical. The correct answer is that it doesn’t matter.

Also, why all the focus on careless owners fondlers? There shouldn’t be any. I dispute the necessary reliance on the temporal nature of words like ‘careless’ and ‘irresponsible’ when used to refer to gun fondlers.
_____

Jafa Hots @ #204

Zee Low, we’re talking about US policy and US law.
I’m an American citizen… not only am I affected by and able (to some degree) to influence US law, I’m also a person who has to live in the culture that results from it.

I’m not going to comment on Australian gun laws because I’m not conceited enough to think I’m in a position to lecture to Australians about things that not only don’t affect me but also about which I am necessarily ignorant in comparison.

That stops me.
Doesn’t stop others I guess.

The fuck is this noise?

Your ignorance of Australian gun laws is not due to the fact that you are not Australian.

Getting informed about something and having an opinion is not dependant on which side of a border one lives.

Also, Jafa Hots, I can appreciate that as an American (read: arrogant ass, because that’s the particular kind of American you’re being), you don’t think that Australian gun laws could possibly have an effect on you or your nation and that as an American (read: ignorant ass, because that’s also the particular kind of American you’re being) you think you necessarily must have less knowledge than an Australian about Australian gun laws (it’s not like you could get, I don’t know, get informed), you find it hard to imagine that American guns laws might affect them or that they might be somewhat informed about American gun laws hard to believe. You might even call such a person conceited, by comparison to your own arrogance and ignorance.

I know I live in this country to the North of you and that there is this largely invisible border separating our countries that cannot be penetrated by American culture, attitudes and politics, so I’m just conceited, but somehow I think I can still contribute to this conversation. That’s really weird. Isn’t it?

Do you realize that most of us here are the middle ground? There have been two comments in this thread advocating something close to a complete ban, one of them wasn’t really a complete ban, the other was a pie in the sky wish, not a policy proposal.

We want meaningful regulation, not an absolute ban.

As for cars, I, for one, having first explained pretty clearly why the car analogy is bullshit (go ahead, Ctrl F on my nym and read it), completely ignored the “some driving is recreational” argument because it’s bullshit. Which driving is recreational? If I drive to visit my parents in Florida is that recreational? What if I drive to a campground for the weekend? What if the baby won’t fall asleep so I strap him in the car seat and go for a cruise until he falls asleep? Is it only if I drive out and back and don’t go anywhere in particular?

We actually do ban many kinds of recreational driving, racing on public roads, for example. And we absolutely should ban high performance cars (some of them we do, but, here’s an apt comparison with guns, too many people have a juvenile, macho belief that they have some need for a car that can go more than 80 miles per hour, which gets in the way of sensible policy, just like the juvenile, macho need to own a powerful handgun and smash things with it).

The simple fact is that it doesn’t matter. In general, cars are a virtual necessity in this country, as well as being perhaps the biggest driver of our economy and making transportation incredibly convenient, if not as efficient as it should be. And they are safe. The safety comparison has to include the number of vehicle miles driven, and by that standard cars are much, much safer than guns. To approach the ubiquity of driving we’d need nearly everyone carrying loaded guns everywhere. The safety comparison fails. The only reasonable comparison, which several of us mentioned and acknowledged, is on regulations, yes, guns should be regulated at least as stringently as cars.

Guns are not useful in anything like this way. Every single use is recreational except for threatening to or shooting a human being. So our options are recreational use or killing and maiming people.

First and foremost, ban the sale and manufacture of high capacity magazines and guns that can accept them.

Ban the manufacture and sale of guns that can be easily converted to fully automatic and all fully automatic firearms.

Full background checks for all gun purchases with improved tracking of mental health and arrest records.

Any conviction strips you permanently of your right to own a gun. Right now it’s easier to own a gun after getting out of prison than to vote.

Any gun confiscated by law enforcement that is not legally returned to its owner because they are not convicted must be destroyed, not sold at auction.

Nationwide gun buyback program with all guns bought back destroyed. Not a one off event here or there at pennies on the dollar, a continuing program where anyone, anywhere can reasonably get to a drop off location to dispose of a firearm. (I own two guns, which my father keeps for me in his gun safe. They are also trigger locked. Only he can open the safe, only I, several states away can open the trigger lock. That’s my solution to the fact that the only way to render them inoperable is to pay a lot of money or to do it myself with no knowledge or specialized equipment. People shouldn’t have to make a choice about what to do with a gun they don’t want and not have destruction as a reasonable option.)

Mandatory licensing and safety training with strict standards prior to all gun purchases.

Gun owners must carry liability insurance (I expect in time that this single, simple law will do the most to reduce gun ownership once insurance companies start doing the math).

That’s my minimal list, what I will absolutely advocate and fight for, though I surely have missed a few.

I would also support a complete ban on handguns.

I would further support a ban on anything with greater than a three round capacity.

I would even go as far as to support requiring all firearms to be kept under lock at licensed ranges from which they may only be removed to be transported to a different range.

Ultimately, the real solution is economic. Guns must be removed from circulation and made more expensive to acquire an own. The unfortunate side affect of this is that richer people will have guns and poorer people won’t, but it’s also the only real way to reduce gun violence. It has to be made very difficult and expensive to get a gun illegally.

Seeing as apparently no one has answered your question regarding punching tiny holes in paper:

Yes, I’m actually moving to archery to get some of my fix for disciplined accuracy. My wife is also learning the bow, and it makes for a good time all around. At least bows don’t usually need Hearing/Eye protection (but glob help you if you aren’t wearing an armguard! :P)

Yanno, I used to make a lot of the other (pro-gun, semi-derail) arguments I see here, but back then, I had a shitton more faith in humanity that they wouldn’t just mindlessly do stupid shit like drop the hammer on weapon pointed at someone. Nowadays, I have ZERO problem with adding a few (dozen) more hoops to jump through. I’ll happily do a background check, license, registration, and proof of training if it keeps guns out of the hands of jackass gun fetishists.

[1]First and foremost, ban the sale and manufacture of high capacity magazines and guns that can accept them.

[2]Ban the manufacture and sale of guns that can be easily converted to fully automatic and all fully automatic firearms.

[3]Full background checks for all gun purchases with improved tracking of mental health and arrest records.

[4]Any conviction strips you permanently of your right to own a gun. Right now it’s easier to own a gun after getting out of prison than to vote.

[5]Any gun confiscated by law enforcement that is not legally returned to its owner because they are not convicted must be destroyed, not sold at auction.

Nationwide gun buyback program with all guns bought back destroyed. Not a one off event here or there at pennies on the dollar, a continuing program where anyone, anywhere can reasonably get to a drop off location to dispose of a firearm. (I own two guns, which my father keeps for me in his gun safe. They are also trigger locked. Only he can open the safe, only I, several states away can open the trigger lock. That’s my solution to the fact that the only way to render them inoperable is to pay a lot of money or to do it myself with no knowledge or specialized equipment. People shouldn’t have to make a choice about what to do with a gun they don’t want and not have destruction as a reasonable option.)

[6]Mandatory licensing and safety training with strict standards prior to all gun purchases.

[7]Gun owners must carry liability insurance (I expect in time that this single, simple law will do the most to reduce gun ownership once insurance companies start doing the math).

That’s my minimal list, what I will absolutely advocate and fight for, though I surely have missed a few.

I would also support a complete ban on handguns.

I would further support a ban on anything with greater than a three round capacity.

I would even go as far as to support requiring all firearms to be kept under lock at licensed ranges from which they may only be removed to be transported to a different range.

[8]Ultimately, the real solution is economic. Guns must be removed from circulation and made more expensive to acquire an own. The unfortunate side affect of this is that richer people will have guns and poorer people won’t, but it’s also the only real way to reduce gun violence. It has to be made very difficult and expensive to get a gun illegally.

[0] I’m assuming this all applies to civilians only. If that assumption is incorrect, please let me know!

[1] This would be a bit of a legal bugbear, largely due to the AWB sunset in 2004 causing a relative boom in sales. Would probably require a mandatory sweep to get rid of them (and that tends to end poorly). Not sure if a Grandfather clause would help or hinder in this case.

[2] Would this refer to weapons that can take drop-in autosears only? Or any gun that can be reasonably modified via something like sear filing? I’m assuming the former, which are heavily regulated at the moment under NFA.

[3] On background checks: I’m assuming you mean something more substantial than the current mandatory NICS system for checks? I would support that, as well as mandatory, TIMELY, participation in the current system

[4] The second half of this is somewhat exaggerated, at least in WA state. There is a 5-10 year waiting period with no convictions to restore firearms rights, and that is only for lesser crimes. You must also submit a formal petition before a county-level judge. Anything above assault 2 ish (class a felonies) is a permanent ban, whereas voting rights are automatically restored immediately upon full remittance of owed time/penalties to the state. Probably different in other states.

[5] This is what I assumed happened. If it’s not, that’s seriously fucked, and I support this measure.

No comment on the gun buyback other than “Yes, please”

[6] YES. This. All of it.

[7] This is FUCKING BRILLIANT. I need to add this to my platform ASAP. It makes a lot of sense, and I think this and registration alone could turn things around

For everything below 7, Handguns are one of those things I’d like to see banned from everyone but the military. If the police want guns, they can carry rifles and shotguns. Too damn many trigger happy cops out there. I think the following 2 could be an either/or clause. If you have a gun in the home, it can’t be more than 3 rd cap. If you have it at a lock & key club safe, then you can have more.

[8] I would argue that this runs into black market issues. I believe the ultimate problem here is gun culture, and the fetishizing (sp?) of weapons and weapon ownership. As we ramp up regulation, we can expect to see a black market ‘correction’ as, sans significant cultural change, demand would still exist, and a small portion of nominally ‘law abiding citizens’ would start looking to arms trafficing from the south to get their fix.

Xaivius@241: photography is another fun toy for accuracy play — plus you can do it in crowds.

I’m surprised nobody seems to be pulling the anti-tyrant argument; that’s usually a standby of pro-gun activists. Maybe that’s because only about 2-3 pro-gunners are active on this thread, generating a huge fraction of the posting activity, and even they claim to advocate regulation.

My own gun views are that hunters and those working in bear country should be free to own long guns with requirements somewhat stricter than car ownership. Target shooters can own guns that they keep at the range, and probably looser requirements than hunting. Police can have emergency armed units for those rare situations that require guns. The military-industrial complex in North America and much of Europe can keep some gun factories and training camps on standby, so that should war break out it’ll take just 3 months to raise an army. Maybe I can allow them to keep some active units to help keep our allies e.g. in Eastern Europe and Korea going for those 3 months.

[0] I tend not to think about the military and police in this at all. There probably are some things that would apply to them as well. I don’t think being in the military should get you an exemption, for example. The military as a whole has an exemption, and can issue you all sorts of weapons, but you don’t get to keep them at home any more than a civilian.

[1] We start with sale and manufacture. Confiscating guns is problematic.

[2] This includes modifications. The design of the gun should prevent fully automatic fire without drastically altering the firearm. It should be really hard to do.

[3] Maybe. Better participation and extending the checks to private sales will do for a start.

[4] Not sure about how easy it is to get a gun after conviction in other states, but many states prevent voting for any convicted felon ever again. So it definitely varies by state.

[5] Many states require that any confiscated items that can be legally sold be sold at auction. Including firearms.

[8] The thing about black markets is that they rely on guns that were legally purchased at some point, for the most part. This is what I mean when I talk about economic solutions. If fewer guns, and none of certain types, can be legally manufactured and sold to private citizens, and gun buy backs and destruction policies exist, then we can reduce the supply available to the black market. It will exist, but it will get more expensive and still lead to fewer people owning fewer guns. Even 3D printing isn’t going to get them out of this. It will enable crazy militia types to stockpile guns still, but it will cost them. And if they’re caught with them outside the law, they’d be confiscated and destroyed.

A bit more on the economics of guns and black markets, because I find it fascinating and troubling.

I started thinking about it this way because of stories I heard about guns in Chicago in the poor neighborhoods where most of gun murders happen. Mass shootings are a problem and gun laws may help reduce it. Idiots who considered themselves “responsible gun owners” shooting their kids is a problem and gun laws should help. But the real tragedy is happening in our cities where young people are shooting each other in turf wars. That’s where most of the gun murders happen, and we’re not helping the people in those neighborhoods who want it to change by basic our gun laws on 18th century rural America.

The thing is that many guns in those areas are already obtained on the black market, but due to the ubiquity of cheap, legal guns in America, the cost of a handgun in some neighborhoods is close to zero. Some kids are just given a gun by an older kid or adult to enable them to “protect their neighborhood”, which may mean revenge shootings after someone from another block shoots someone from their block.

But anything that makes it harder and more expensive to get a gun will reduce the likelihood and raise the price at which someone will sell it into that black market. Right now you just need a guy to show up at a gun show and buy a bunch of guns cheap and bring them into the neighborhood, or someone who can legally buy guns to pick a few up at Dick’s or Walmart and bring them in. When that cost is driven up by reducing the number of guns on the market, changing the type, requiring that purchaser to be checked out at the gun show, stripping felons of the right to buy guns, and requiring training, licensing, and registration, you’re going to see the cost of a handgun on the street go up. That’s going to reduce their ubiquity and reduce the number of accidental and intentional shootings over time. Time is important, this is going to take years even after the law is changed. Which makes it all a bit of a pipe dream.

It’s all troubling because these are often majority black neighborhoods, so we have to recognize that this doesn’t happen because they’re black, it happens because of centuries of systematically keeping black people poor, relegating them to dense, poor neighborhoods, not providing adequate educational or economic opportunities – this is our fault as rich white guys first and foremost.

It’s also troubling because it means rich white guys and upper echelon gangsters will be the most likely to have guns. And even relatively rich white guys can end up being violent, murdering thugs. The whole thing feels a little paternalistic, but it’s also just about the only way to realistically address gun violence and it is about making guns less prevalent as many places as possible, not about targeting black youth. It’s a better approach than tough on crime measures with a racist focus. The same laws would at least apply to everyone.

[1]: well, that will result in a cap on the number of magazines out there. Perhaps a strong buyback for hicaps at the same time? (something like 50-100 per magazine, which is what Grandfathered Hicaps were going for under the AWB)

[2]: The issue here is the vast majority of semi-automatic weapons can be very easily filed down to a ‘hellfire’ full-auto mode (i.e. magdump on trigger pull). This will require manufacturing regulations for offset, hardened sears, and/or receiver milled/welded sear catches. Probably should have been standard decades ago anyway. It would definitely be a start. There’s a fair portion of weapons now that are manufactured to deliberately defer such attempts, so there’s some progress.

[3]: I agree with the private sales check. A proper registration would act as a strong disincentive to strawman purchases of firearms, I believe.

[4]: I noticed this as well. The state-by-state regs vary considerably. Apologies if it was semi-non sequiteurish.

[5]: Just to reiterate: that is seriously fucked, and needs to stop.

@245

I would be worried about the gun pipeline down south through mexico/central/south america essentially reversing after a point (so many cheap Kalashnikov/FAL pattern rifles down there), but your point is extremely well made. Keeping firearms out of major problem areas like Chicago, especially when it’s on a national scale, would probably lower the death toll. I’d be worried about an actual reduction of violence, but that’s where I’d LOVE to see a CDC study to see if there is a significant drop (there probably will be)

Addressing the supply a bit, from above, I can see that we’ll probably need to amp up the BATFE budget to compensate, as well watching for north-bound smuggling of weapons. Home manufacturing would probably be an ‘anarchists cookbook’ problem: The instructions exist, but you’re dealing with pressures in the 10s of thousands of PSI, and precision machining. The current licensing system for home manufacture I think will be fine, provided enforcement is consistent.

On a related note: We need to ban lobbying and WLP needs to soak his head. Also: more funding and oversight for the BATFE.

I own guns. I use guns. I have a concealed carry permit and do sometimes carry concealed. I have actually drawn and fired my weapon in self defense and killed the target for which I was aiming with a single well-placed shot to the head. I do hunt, though for hunting I prefer to use a bow.

And it is my considered opinion that the vast majority of the US does not need to own guns. And nobody needs to own an automatic. Few need to own a semi-automatic. Nobody needs a high-powered rifle. Absolutely nobody needs a handgun that can penetrate the average front door of a house.

Guns should at be at least as inconvenient to own as cars. You must pass a test that shows you know how to use one before you are given the license that allows you to use one. Your license can be suspended at anytime should you operate one in a manner even remotely unsafe. You must be retested at set intervals to ensure you are still able to utilize one properly. You must register and pay taxes on all firearms you own. If you take your guns out of your gun safe, you must be able to show that you have paid insurance on said firearms should any ‘accidents’ occur. You must produce your license, gun registration, and proof of insurance upon request by any LEO when having said firearms outside your gun safe. Being in possession of a firearm while under the effects of any mind-altering substance will result in your ‘right’ to possess a firearm being revoked for a minimum of one year up to however long it takes you to grow the fuck up. Firing your gun in the air in public should be grounds for immediate revocation of your firearm license until you complete a firearm safety course which should cost you at least your average yearly available funds to take. Carrying your firearm in public without being able to demonstrate you were either on your way home, to a gun range, to go hunting, or other actually valid reason should net you a ticket of at least $200.

Yes, that sucks. Yes, it’s inconvenient. Yes, it’s annoying that75% of gun owners give the rest of us a bad name. But that’s life. Deal. Or figure out a way to fix the part of the human brain that makes them be chronic dumbshits.

I concur. Also, more people should take up archery or photography for accuracy sports. Archery is damned cheap, provided one isn’t snapping arrows and fletchings left and right, anyway. Less cleaning involved too! :D

@250 – “Also, more people should take up archery or photography for accuracy sports.”

Not to mention, you get way better ‘trophies’ from photography. I mean, yeah, you shot a 12 point buck, but I tracked him 10 miles and got a shot of him standing majestically on a rise, with the moon framed perfectly between his antlers.

Things like hunting do have their uses for population control, but, well, let me share a story of the experience of a friend of mine who raises goats.

These goats are Saneen. Solid white. They live in a barn with an attached fenced pasture. This is located well within the boundaries of her property, which is also fenced and clearly posted with ‘no trespassing / private property’ signs. Every damn year somebody takes a shot at her goats. One guy even pulled into her driveway, past her house, to take aim.

We clearly need to revamp a lot of how we handle hunting permits as well.

Now, as for the question about tiny holes in paper – I don’t target shoot much at all these days. This is primarily due to the NRA gun-fondler types who hang out at the ranges. I don’t feel safe in their presence, especially when they are armed, and I get sick and fucking tired of all of the ones who want to ‘talk to the little lady about handling a proper weapon hur hur hur’, so I don’t go. I can set up archery targets on my property, so I do that instead.

If you can find me a way to keep coyotes, raccoons, and stray dogs away from my livestock that doesn’t incur either a massive quality of life decrease for the aforementioned livestock or completely impractical and ludicrous expense, difficulty, and/or danger for me, while at the same time not posing a significant hazard to the people and pets that wander my property, I will happily have all my guns rendered inoperable.

This country could easily stand to do away with around 80% of the guns currently ‘in use’. But there are practical considerations that gun control somewhat short of a complete ban.

That said, the more the NRA and gun-fondler types rail against the ‘gun grabbers’, the closer I come to supporting a complete ban. Anyone who donates to or supports the NRA is NOT responsible or intelligent enough to be allowed to own a firearm. I have the same opinion of anyone who gets their news from Glenn Beck.

The lack of thought that led to it. I’m happy to be called a shitwit when it’s justified. But someone who seems to think that “not necessarily” is the same as “mutually exclusive” calling me one? They can cop it right back.

When someone calls me a “shitwit” when they clearly don’t understand simple usage of the language, pointing it out is not pedantry.

Your original comment justifies the insult. You were-and still are-a shitwit.
Speaking of that original comment @124…

You lot are pathetic. The “tard” suffix is crossing a line, but calling all gun owners sociopaths with sexual disfunction (“fiddler”) is not?

What thread are you reading? There is exactly *one* comment prior to your #124 that contains ‘sociopath’- #76, by Keith Welch:

It takes a special kind of person to say: “I won’t allow even the slightest regulation of my hobby, even to save innocent lives.”

i.e. a sociopath.

• Keith did not say “all gun owners are sociopaths with sexual disfunction“. Can you admit you were wrong?
• “You lot” isn’t terribly specific. I guess you’re referring to the commentariat here, but you’re quite vague. In any event, your assessment is without merit. No one said “all gun owners are sociopaths with sexual disfunction“, so who exactly are you calling pathetic and why?

• using the word ‘retard’ as an insult is a bigoted slur and this is a community that condemns the use of bigoted slurs. It’s quite easy to insult someone without causing splash damage. Seven of Mine showed how easy it is by calling you a ‘shitwit’. See, no splash damage.

You’re all a bit too precious I reckon.

Too precious? For what? Have you forgotten the subject of this thread? Have you forgotten what PZ blogged about? Here, let’s refresh your memory: an 11 year old was killed by his uncle bc the latter was playing with his gun. With a few exceptions (from the asshole brigade who show more concern over their right to own a gun rather than the right of everyone else to be alive) commenters have condemned Chad Olm or criticized the NRA and the US gun culture. What’s “precious” about that?

You also need to learn how to socialise and pick who your real enemies are.

You’re making an assumption about people in this thread. Do you have evidence that anyone here doesn’t know how to socialize? Moreover, how do you define ‘socialise’? Why does anyone have to conform to your idea of how to socialise? What makes your way right and others wrong?
As for “picking our real enemies”, do you think we shouldn’t be criticizing the NRA? Do you think we’re wrong to condemn gun culture? Do you think we’re wrong for caring that a child died because an asshole treated a deadly weapon like a toy?

You’ve spent too much time locked in your own worlds and have no idea there is this whole other world out there where everyone isn’t out to get you.

You have no idea what anyone else does with their time. You’re making another vacuous assumption based on comments made on a blog.
Also, I must have missed the commenters who stated (or implied) that “everyone is out to get” them. Can you point to examples?

I suffer from MDD, have a family that has had multiple suicides…

My sympathies on both.

But I look at you vultures and there is no sympathy from me.

I don’t even understand this. We’re vultures for criticizing gun culture? We’re vultures for condemning the actions of Chad Olm? We’re vultures for calling for stricter gun control?
At this point, I don’t care if you grant anyone sympathy. I’d just like you to explain in greater detail what the hell you’re talking about.

You’re hate filled assholes who need to wake the fuck up.

Sooooooo, people expressing disgust with Chad Olm, and sorrow over the death of an 11 year old
are hate filled assholes? Please explain your logic. Oh, and “wake the fuck up” to…what pray tell?

And I own no guns. I don’t want to own any guns. I don’t think 99% of the population should be allowed to possess guns.

Well, there’s something I agree with you on (though I don’t have an exact percentage)

But you lot… You take extremism to a whole new level.

You’ve made an assertion, now back it up.
In what way are the comments you are criticizing examples of extremism?

And are people SERIOUSLY arguing that recreational driving does not exist on public roads? Morons.

Huh.
I read every comment up to yours and I don’t see anyone saying that recreational driving does not exist on public roads. Perhaps you can provide a link to the comment where this was said…?

The lack of thought that led to it. I’m happy to be called a shitwit when it’s justified. But someone who seems to think that “not necessarily” is the same as “mutually exclusive” calling me one? They can cop it right back.

How did you peer into Seven of Mine’s mind to determine hir “lack of thought”? Your comments in this thread are evidence of your shitwittery.

Searching about for Zee Low’s infrequent commentary, I wonder why this, of all threads, ya know, the one in which a gun owner blew some kid’s head off, is the one Zee Low chose to dive into and defend the gun owners from the assholes? There are tons of threads in which much more innocent swaths of humanity have been torn to shreds by the commentariat, and to this point your comments have been mild? And Zee Low’s reasoning for the whining is total shit. Only one person used “-tard,” heavily edited, and was called on it pretty quick. Sociopath was used once, but only a person completely lacking any knowledge of the English language could take it as saying “Gun owners are sociopaths”. Where the whining about sexual dysfunction came from is beyond me. The rest has been Bill Clinton-style “What is IS” pedantry about words like substantial and necessarily and, for fuck sake, fondler or fiddler or some fucking shit.

Interesting. Can you point to the individual who used ctrl-F as a conversation tool? I used control F to find out if your assertions were true or not. I thought “hey, if I’m going to respond to this douchecanoe, I should make sure I’ve read what xe said.” You made a few assertions. They were wrong. You’ve made comments that seem to imply that you are a mindreader. You aren’t. Your criticism of the commentariat is without substance. You seem unable to point to examples to support your assertions. As others have asked, what the fuck are you doing here?

You can call someone a sociopath without using that exact term. Did you search for other things like “blood on your hands”, etc? Why assume that all statements are assertions of fact? Do you not understand the concept of “vibe” and “tone”? And that’s not to say I’m accusing people of tone trolling, or that I’m tone trolling. There was hostility here to a number of people (i.e. Eirik) that was undeserved. You took comments from those people out of context, and without an understanding of what they meant and used them to judge unfairly.

You take everything so goddamn literally, and if you want evidence look at 99% of the responses to my posts. And if you can’t see it… Wow.

And it comes back full circle. Zee whining about us being so very very mean and showing that they have a very low threshold for criticism by complaining about “99%” of the very mild criticisms Zee has received directly. Zee, go to the fainting couch. Go directly to the fainting couch.

I’m really hoping that English isn’t Zee Row Brown’s native language. He keeps getting various idioms and colloquialisms completely wrong while maintaining that everyone else is wrong. The “blood on your hands” idiom does not mean sociopath in any English dialect that I’m aware of, but rather implies that those with “blood on their hands” are culpable for the deaths in some way.

It takes a special kind of person to say: “I won’t allow even the slightest regulation of my hobby, even to save innocent lives.”

i.e. a sociopath.

*You* said:

You lot are pathetic. The “tard” suffix is crossing a line, but calling all gun owners sociopaths with sexual disfunction (“fiddler”) is not?

Keith said nothing about *all* gun owners. AFAICT-from rereading the thread-no one has said (or even hinted at) “all gun owners are sociopaths (or other words that clearly describe sociopathic behavior)”. Please point to the comments where anyone called all gun owners sociopaths-or words that clearly describe sociopathic behavior.

Did you search for other things like “blood on your hands”, etc?

Why would I do that? You didn’t refer to the phrase “blood on your hands”. Even if you had, who here has hinted that that phrase applies to “all gun owners”?

Why assume that all statements are assertions of fact?

Why are you assuming that I’ve done that?
More seriously, I wasn’t operating under that assumption. You *have* made several statements that are asserted as fact:

You also need to learn how to socialise and pick who your real enemies are

You assert here that we need to learn how to socialize. Do you have enough evidence to make that assertion? No, you do not. You should not have made that statement.

You’ve spent too much time locked in your own worlds and have no idea there is this whole other world out there where everyone isn’t out to get you.

Another assertion. Do you have evidence to support this bizarre belief you have? Please note that you’re going to have to provide quite a bit more evidence than your inane interpretations of the comments in this thread. Pointing to comments in this thread as evidence that people have “spent too much time lockedYADDAYADDAYADDA…” is insufficient to support your belief.

Here’s another unsupported comment:

You’re hate filled assholes who need to wake the fuck up.

Where is the evidence of this?
Did you think you could drop these turds and not be called out on them?

Do you not understand the concept of “vibe” and “tone”?

I do, but I don’t understand why you’re whining about it, as if there’s only one way to discuss a subject (your way, of course).

There was hostility here to a number of people (i.e. Eirik) that was undeserved.

Who displayed hostility? More to the point, why are you interpreting comments as if they’re hostile? Why is your interpretation correct? Eirik expressed hir thoughts in this thread. Hir thoughts were criticized by others. How is that hostile?

You took comments from those people out of context, and without an understanding of what they meant and used them to judge unfairly.

No.
Many of us understood the comments. We don’t agree that there is a valid comparison between guns and cars. Remember, the primary use of guns is to kill/destroy, while the primary use of cars is transportation. Eirik made a bad analogy. Criticism ensued. You don’t seem to like that. Boo fucking hoo.

It’s not lost on me that you chose not to respond to my #264. I hoped that you would at least make the attempt to address my criticisms, but I guess you’re here to whine. Pity that.

You take everything so goddamn literally, and if you want evidence look at 99% of the responses to my posts. And if you can’t see it… Wow

This isn’t a bible studies course. We shouldn’t have to parse whether or not a comment is made literally or figuratively. In fact, I’m not sure how that would be done. Can you explain how I’m supposed to tell the intent behind a comment?

I doubt that the nym has anything to do with “down low”. I’m fairly certain it is just a riff on Cee Lo Green. Why they chose “Brown” of all colors, I have no idea.

Also: in regards to “blood on your hands”…I’m the only one who used that phrase! And I did it in reply to the troll that barged in here, right while we were dealing with Zeero, and started bragging about how none of our concerns mean jackshit, so nyah nyah, second amendment, more nephews killed by stupid uncles, FREEDOM!

No, xe isn’t. I’m still not certain what Zee Low is doing here.
Comments like #190:

Guns have a small amount of utility. If the debate is open gun ownership vs total ban, then I side with total ban. But if the debate is total ban vs highly regulated, I’ll go with regulation because there IS some non-recreational use for guns

and #171:

I have no problem with you wanting a ban on all guns. If I had a choice between the ridiculous system in the USA vs banning all guns, I’d choose to ban all guns – the small amount of legitimate utility guns provide is just not worth it.

But there IS a small amount of legitimate utility and I don’t think that should be denied. I grew up in the Australian high country. Farmers carry rifles there to euthanise livestock. If we assume the validity of cattle and sheep farming to begin with (I accept many don’t), and we assume the validity of euthanasia (I accept many don’t), then considering the distances involved and time for a vet call-out, the utility of a gun here is pretty demonstrable. (And when I say “vet call-out” I mean call-outs for the vet to do the euthanising)

and #147:

OK, the real enemies, in the context of this thread, are the NRA, 2nd Amendment fundamentalists, and people who think “self-defence” is a valid reason for gun ownership. Target shooters, hunters, farmers, and moderates are not

express views similar to other commenters here. So if Zee Low Brown supports stricter gun control laws, as most of us do, then most of hir comments in this thread amount to pedantic whining and tone trolling our criticisms of Eirik and caesar somehow mean that we’re hostile, moronic, assholes who are incapable of socializing. ::eyeroll::

You’re glad that we aren’t in your government — because we’re upset about guns — yet you (later) claim that you are also opposed to guns.

I never claimed I was “also opposed to guns”, I said I am persona non grata at multiple gun shops due to my anti-NRA stance. I turned in the lifetime membership my grandfather bought me for my 12th birthday years ago when the NRA-ILA began working overtime to defeat legislation that would punish people for being incompetent and negligent with firearms, which is obviously a major problem here in the USA, as evidenced by the murder of the child mentioned in this blog post – I say murder because one of the most basic gun rules is that you don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to kill or destroy. Pointing a gun at a child’s head sure sounds like intent to me.

Boy am I glad that none of my inalienable rights as a US Citizen — including my right to keep and bear arms — hinge on the opinions of some of the folks commenting here. Some of the comments are full of enough histrionics to wring their way through several pairs of hands.

in response, anteprepro @195 said:

nomennescio: Yes, congratulations on having your odious politics being closer to mainstream. It means you get to go home, watch the news, and squeal out in glee while you watch story after story of unnecessary gun deaths occurring in the name of FREEEEEEEEDOM. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition. There is no God but GOP, and NRA is its Profit.

Blood is on your fucking hands, and you are so gleeful about it. Fucking scumbag.

back to you @203:

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. I was going to point out that I’m actually in favor of stricter regulation of firearm ownership, am persona non grata at multiple gun shops due to my anti-NRA stance, and don’t vote Republican, but hey, why spoil your self-righteous little narrative?

As I re-read your comments, you come across much like Zee Low Brown. You both have stated that you support stricter gun control (as do most of the commenters in this thread) yet you both offer vague criticisms of other gun control advocates in this thread. Of course no one is beyond criticism, and you both are obviously entitled to criticize whichever comments you choose. My issue is that both you and Zee Low Brown have poorly defined criticisms.

Your point appears to be that you’re glad your rights as a US citizen do not depend on the opinions of some commenters in this thread. You don’t mention who the commenters are, nor why you think their comments are full of histrionics (nor do you mention which comments you’re referring to). Would you care to explain which comments, prior to your #191 are full of histrionics as well as why those comments demonstrate exaggerated attention grabbing behavior?

You know, these folks who totally support gun control but still feel compelled to chastise us for being too strident or extremist or whatever sort of remind me of two other debate phenomena.

“Moderates” JAQing off who turn out to be not so moderate once they actually manage to say something of substance.
Christians who suddenly transform their Bible worship and firm belief in an interventionist deity into an esteem for the Bible as literature and a tendency towards deism, if it makes arguing more convenient.

Either these folks aren’t being entirely honest with us or aren’t being entirely honest with themselves.

What we have here is an idiot violating most basic gun safety rules, resulting in tragedy from which progressives are trying to make political hay of. And if data on article pans out, I do believe that charges of criminally neglicent manslaughter would appear slam dunk.

“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer’s hand.”
–Seneca

These people live in a gated-community supposedly to be protected from gun crime and other crimes. Luckily they are safe from outsiders like black gang members. But people in gated-communities can be just as stupid, if not more so, than people living in normal neighborhoods. Why did this asshole have so many guns, apparently all handguns?

For all the gun-sucking morons who posted here, why don’t you try a penis enlarger advertised on porn sites?

What we have here is an idiot violating most basic gun safety rules, resulting in tragedy from which progressives are trying to make political hay of. – mirrorfield@291

According to gun fuckheads like you, pointing to clear evidence that gun ownership should be more strictly controlled because that would save innocent lives – like this ghastly event – is automatically disqualified as “making political hay”. You wouldn’t have to resort to such blatantly dishonest tactics if you had a rational case.

randay, I hope that your comment about gangs was a sarcastic comment about what you assume those people think. Otherwise, watch it. You have enough of a history here to not be granted any benefit of the doubt.

What we have here is an idiot violating most basic gun safety rules, resulting in tragedy from which progressives are trying to make political hay of. And if data on article pans out, I do believe that charges of criminally neglicent manslaughter would appear slam dunk.

More accurately, we have a sterling example of why the safety rules and controls for firearms need to be enforced by rule of law, because the average american is too fucking stupid to understand firearm safety. The ‘responsible, law abiding gun owners’ should have ZERO problems passing any competency or safety test, and, frankly, shouldn’t be objecting to basic rules like “if you’re going to drop $1,000 on your ar-15, you should probably at least have a $100 locking gun-cabinet to put the damn thing in” or “If you store your weapons in any way other than inoperable, you are a fucking idiot”.

Yeah, this guy was an idiot, and it ended in the death of a child. If we were using that one example by itself as a reason to advocate stricter gun laws, then someome might have reason to consider us extreme or lacking a sense of proportion. What apologists ignore is that we use the numerous incidents like this as examples in a larger context of an American gun culture that actively opposes even modest measures to keep guns out of the hands of stupid and violent people who can’t be trusted to handle a gun. If the gun culture actually encouraged responsibility, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation so ridiculously often, and we wouldn’t be as strongly motivated to bring in the government to clean up their failures at self-regulation.

Sometimes I think apologists are gun owners who have given up on trying to inspire confidence in their culture and figure it’s easier to intimidate/shame/ridicule people into lowering their standards for a safe society than go through the inconvenience of taking gun safety tests. …More likely, they know on some level that they and all their buddies will fail such tests.

What we have here is an idiot violating most basic gun safety rules, resulting in tragedy from which progressives are trying to make political hay of

The United States has an epidemic of gun violence. The tragic death in the OP is one more example of that gun violence. If advocating for stricter gun control–to reduce the gun violence, and thereby increase safety for *all* Americans–is making “political hay”, I’m happy to do so. I don’t give two shits about your right to bear arms (a “right” that should have been eliminated long ago) so long as people are dying by the very weapons you worship.

So, your solution is throw the book at this guy, make him disappear, and then promptly forget about what he’s done and how fucking common it actually is? Or is there some deeper meaning to “make political hay” in your post that I’m obviously unaware of, because it seems like you’re arguing that we should all stick our heads in the sand and pretend this never happened so we can maintain the status quo.

And what exactly is wrong with reacting to an incident with legislation? Should our laws be completely arbitrary just so we can avoid “making political hay”? Maybe we should have the representative from Ohio propose a law preventing indigo manatees from owning goat servants while travelling on intercontinental railways within America?

The ‘responsible, law abiding gun owners’ should have ZERO problems passing any competency or safety test, and, frankly, shouldn’t be objecting to basic rules like “if you’re going to drop $1,000 on your ar-15, you should probably at least have a $100 locking gun-cabinet to put the damn thing in” or “If you store your weapons in any way other than inoperable, you are a fucking idiot”.

I don’t have a problem with that and yes, I store the bolts in a wall safe separate from the frames/receivers in a cabinet, but then I’m a dirty foreigner who obviously doesn’t believe in freedom (so I’ve been told).

I find it spectacularly asinine that simply not having a criminal record qualifies you to buy and carry any firearm you wish without demonstrating that you have the first fucking clue what you’re doing with it.

Personally, I’d like to see a tiered system of licensing & training, which would involve mandatory proficiency & safety testing, whereby you can pretty much own anything you like, but the restrictions on ownership get progressively more challenging for each tier with handguns and other semi automatic magazine fed weapons pretty damned close to the top.

California has a basic questionnaire you have to pass in order to qualify to buy a handgun and they recently extended that to long guns (which, obviously, the NRA classified as an unqualified attack on our freedoms, but then the NRA attacks everything as an unqualified attack on our freedoms, which is why I didn’t bother renewing my membership), but it’s laughably easy and, quite frankly, doesn’t even begin to qualify someone to own something as dangerous as a handgun.